^ 


;  c 
:  o 
:  CO 

:  o 

=  c 
-  — ( 

;  X 

S  m 
5  33 


!  O 


■>:rvi'-'v.'-  r'v  vv::;t*'^ 


Hillquit 


Socialism  on  Trial 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE     FREEMAN     PAMPHLETS 


SOCIALISM  ON  TRIAL 


by 
MORRIS   HILLQUIT 


<s^ 


wm 


PUBLISHED    BY 

B.  W.   HUEBSCH 

INC. 

NEW   YORK 


<^^ 


SOCIALISM   ON  TRIAL 


BY 


MORRIS   HILLQUIT 


^1^ 


%ki^. 


NEW   YORK,   MCMXX 


B.  W.   HUEBSCH,  INC. 


TO  MY   WIFE 


COPYRIGHT,     1920,     BY 
B,     W.      HUKBSCH,      INC. 


HA 


-i  -4^ 


PREFACE 

On  the  first  day  of  April,  1920,  the  lower  house  of 
the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  by  an  over- 
whelming vote  adopted  a  resolution  expelling  the  five 
Socialists  who  had  been  elected  members  of  that  body. 
The  unprecedented  action  was  the  culmination  of  a 
sensational  political  proceeding,  which  was  followed  with 
tense  interest  by  the  whole  country.  It  had  its  incep- 
tion on  the  opening  day  of  the  legislative  session,  January 
7th,  1920,  when  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  Thaddeus 
C.  Sweet,  without  preliminary  debate  or  notice  of  any 
kind,  suddenly  ordered  the  Socialist  members  to  the 
bar  of  the  House  and  coolly  informed  them  that  they 
would  not  be  allowed  to  take  their  seats  in  the  Assembly 
on  the  ground  that  they  had  been  elected  "upon  a  plat- 
form that  is  absolutely  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  State  of  New  York  and  of  the  United  States."  The 
Speaker  was  immediately  followed  by  the  majority  leader 
of  the  Assembly,  who  offered  a  resolution  in  substance 
condemning  the  Socialist  Party  as  a  revolutionary  and 
unpatriotic  organization,  and  directing  that  the  seats  of 
the  Socialist  Assemblymen  be  declared  vacant  "pending 
the  determination  of  their  qualifications  and  eligibility." 
The  resolution  was  passed  with  only  six  dissenting  votes. 
After  thus  convicting  a  whole  political  party  without 
trial,  the  entire  matter  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Assembly  "for  investigation"  —  a  sort 
of  post-mortem  inquest.  The  hearings  in  the  peculiar 
proceeding  resulted  in  a  divided  report,  seven  members 


1362304 


vi  PREFACE 

of  the  Committee  recommending  the  expulsion  of  all  the 
Socialist  Assemblymen,  while  five  members  upheld  their 
right  to  their  seats  and  one  favored  the  expulsion  of 
three  and  the  seating  of  two  of  the  defendants. 

From  a  legal  aspect  the  proceeding  was  a  monstrosity. 

The  entire  scheme  of  our  political  system  is  that  the 
people  should  govern  through  their  elected  representa- 
tives. The  right  of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  rep- 
resentatives is  supreme.  The  provisions  of  the  New 
York  State  constitution  which  had  any  bearing  upon  the 
issue,  are  based  upon  this  political  axiom.  The  law 
prescribes  the  qualifications  of  Members  of  the  Assembly. 
They  are  few  in  number  and  plain  in  meaning.  A  Mem- 
ber of  the  Assembly  must  be  of  full  age,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  and  a  resident  of  the  State.  He 
must,  of  course,  also  have  been  elected  by  a  plurality  of 
the  votes  legally  cast  in  his  district  at  an  election  duly 
held. 

Since  the  existence  of  these  qualifications  and  the  fact 
of  the  election  may  be,  and  in  practice  often  are,  ques- 
tioned, and  an  appropriate  tribunal  must  exist  to  de- 
termine such  questions,  the  constitution  of  the  State 
ordains  that  each  house  shall  be  "the  judge  of  the  elec- 
tions, returns  and  qualifications  of  its  own  members." 

In  passing  upon  the  qualifications  of  its  members,  the 
Assembly  acts  in  a  judicial  capacity.  It  is  legally  and 
morally  bound  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  latter  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  rights 
of  elected  public  officials. 

After  directing  that  all  such  officials  take  an  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  prescribing 
the  form  of  such  oath,  it  specifically  and  solemnly  or- 
dains that  "no  other  oath,  declaration  or  test  shall  be 
required  as  a  qualification  for  any  ofiice  of  public  trust." 
To  an  unbiased  mind  it  must  be  quite  patent  that  the 


PREFACE  vii 

intentions  of  this  provision  was  to  prohibit  the  exact 
thing  which  the  Assembly  has  done  in  the  case  of  its 
Socialist  members. 

Now  that  the  proceeding  has  passed  from  the  agitated 
realm  of  controversy  into  the  serene  domain  of  history, 
the  full  significance  of  the  precedent  set  in  Albany  gradu- 
ally begins  to  dawn  upon  thinking  America.  As  time 
goes  on  the  irretrievable  ravages  which  the  reckless  ac- 
tion has  wrought  upon  the  precious  fabric  of  popular 
government  will  become  more  obvious.  In  the  calm 
retrospect  of  future  years  the  lawless  disfranchisement 
of  a  whole  political  party  will  rank  with  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  as  a  national  calamity. 

The  baneful  precedent  may  never  be  applied  again,  or 
it  may  be  made  the  basis  of  an  even  more  outrageous- 
political  crime  in  some  future  fit  of  emotional  public 
hysteria.  It  will  always  be  with  us.  Like  Banquo's 
ghost,  it  will  hover  about  the  constitution  —  a  sinister 
reminder  of  the  insecurity  of  representative  govern- 
ment and  popular  elections. 

The  action  of  the  Assembly  will  not  destroy  the  So- 
cialist Party.  Nor  will  it  force  it  to  modify  its  substan- 
tial aims  or  character.  The  Socialist  movement  is  too 
strongly  intrenched  as  a  vital  and  organic  part  of  the 
modern  political  system  to  be  annihilated  by  the  edict 
of  a  handful  of  naive  politicians. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  action  of  the  Assembly  may 
prove  to  be  the  making  of  the  Socialist  Party.  The 
plot  for  the  ouster  of  the  Socialist  members  of  the  As- 
sembly undoubtedly  originated  with  the  Republican 
machine  in  the  Assembly.  Had  the  Democratic  members 
of  the  Assembly  or  the  Democratic  Party  as  such  pos- 
sessed the  political  honesty,  courage  and  wisdom  to  op- 
pose the  measure,  the  odium  of  the  proceeding  would 
have  fallen  with  its  entire  weight  upon  the  Republican 
Party.    But  the  Democrats  chose  to  make  common  cause 


viii  PREFACE 

with  their  Republican  rival  in  the  perpetration  of  the 
outrage. 

The  Socialist  Party  thus  becomes  the  only  place  of 
refuge  for  the  liberty-loving  citizen.  The  irony  of  the 
political  game  has  decreed  that  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  Socialist  Party  has  been  barred  from  a  legislative 
body  as  a  "foe  of  the  constitution,"  it  finds  itself  the 
sole  political  guardian  of  popular  constitutional  rights. 
Henceforward  Socialism  will  have  a  double  appeal  to  the 
voters,  a  political  as  well  as  an  economic. 

The  following  pages  represent  a  full  stenographic 
record  of  my  closing  address  as  counsel  for  the  Socialist 
Assemblymen  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
Assembly.  The  hearing,  which  began  on  the  20th  day 
of  January  and  was  concluded  on  the  9th  day  of  March, 
covered  most  of  the  important  phases  of  modern  So- 
cialist thought  and  policy.  It  leaves  behind  it  a  record 
of  more  than  2200  closely  printed  pages.  The  closing 
address,  which  attempted  to  summarize  the  issues  from 
the  Socialist  point  of  view,  thus  resolved  itself  into  an 
attempt  at  a  rather  complete  exposition  of  the  present- 
day  philosophy,  program  and  methods  of  the  Socialist 
Party  and  its  attitude  towards  the  late  war  and  the 
great  world  problems  arising  from  it.  This  character  of 
the  speech  and  the  historic  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  made,  will,  I  hope,  justify  its  present  publication. 

New  York,  May  15th,  1920 

Morris  Hillquit 


SOCIALISM   ON    TRIAL 


The  Charges. —  Before  beginning  my  argument,  I 
wish  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee,  for  the  great  patience  and  for- 
bearance which  you  have  shown  throughout  this  pro- 
ceeding. I  also  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  to  counsel 
on  the  other  side  for  their  conduct,  which,  on  the 
whole,  has  been  courteous,  and  to  say  that  if,  in  the 
course  of  my  remarks  I  should  have  occasion  to  criticize 
some  of  their  conduct  in  this  proceeding  it  shall  by  no 
means  be  taken  as  personal,  but  only  as  necessitated 
by  the  exigencies  of  the  case  itself. 

True  to  his  promise,  the  Chairman  has  allowed  a  great 
latitude  to  both  sides  in  the  introduction  of  evidence.  We 
have  had  an  extraordinary  wide  range  of  testimony,  some 
relevant,  some  irrelevant;  and  today,  when  we  come  to 
sum  up  the  case,  we  are  confronted  by  an  unusual  record, 
I  believe,  of  about  2,000  printed  pages,  covering  every 
conceivable  historical,  economic  and  sociological  subject. 

I  believe  it  to  be  the  object  of  a  summing  up  to  sepa- 
rate the  wheat  from  the  chaff ;  to  come  down  to  the  actual 
issues;  to  discuss  the  principal  evidence  on  such  issues, 
and  to  give  the  view  of  counsel  for  the  respective  sides, 
on  the  purport  and  meaning  of  such  evidence;  and  I  be- 
lieve I  can  render  no  better  service  to  the  Committee  in 
their  deliberations  than  to  recall  to  them  at  the  threshold 
that  after  all  is  said  and  done,  and  after  all  the  testi- 
mony is  sifted  and  weighed,  we  are  here  in  a  definite 
proceeding  and  for  a  definite  and  concrete  object.  We 
have  gotten  away  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  We  have 
gotten  away  in  some  respects  from  the  objects,  and  it  may 
be  well  to  recall  here  the  origin  of  this  proceeding. 

In  the  last  general  election  of  1919,  Louis  Waldman, 


2  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

August  Claessens,  Samuel  A.  deWitt,  Samuel  Orr  and 
Charles  Solomon  were  duly  elected  by  their  respective 
constituencies  in  the  city  of  New  York,  to  be  members 
of  this  body.  They  received  a  plurality,  or  majority 
vote  in  each  case.  Their  election  was  not  contested.  A 
certificate  of  election  was  issued  to  each  of  them,  and  on 
the  7th  day  of  January,  1920,  the  opening  day  of  the 
first  session  of  this  Assembly,  they  duly  presented  them- 
selves, took  the  constitutional  oath  of  oflBce,  participated 
in  the  work  of  organizing  this  Chamber  and  in  some  other 
preliminary  work  until  such  time  as  they  were,  upon  the 
motion  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  —  upon  his  own 
motion  —  called  before  the  Bar  of  this  House  and,  after 
being  lectured  by  the  Speaker,  a  resolution  was  intro- 
duced, submitted  to  a  vote  and  adopted;  and  they 
thereupon  and  under  the  terms  of  that  resolution,  were 
suspended  from  their  office  pending  this  hearing. 

This  resolution  is  the  authority  under  which  your 
Committee  acts.  It  not  only  states  the  subject  of  your 
inquiry,  but  it  also  defines  and  limits  your  authority  in 
the  matter.  It  is  the  only  legal  warrant  under  which 
you  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  are  here  to-day ;  and  it, 
therefore,  becomes  very  important  to  have  that  resolu- 
tion and  its  wording  clearly  before  you.  I  shall  take  the 
liberty  of  reading  it  now.    It  is  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  Louis  Waldman,  August  Claessens, 
Samuel  A.  deWitt,  Samuel  Orr  and  Charles  Solomon 
are  members  of  the  Socialist  Party  of  America ;  and 

"Whereas,  the  said  Socialist  Party  did,  at  its 
official  party  convention,  held  in  the  city  of  Chicago, 
Illinois,  in  the  month  of  August,  1919,  declare  its 
adherence  and  solidarity  with  the  revolutionary 
forces  of  Soviet  Russia  and  did  pledge  itself  and  its 
members  to  the  furtherance  of  the  International 
Socialist  Revolution;  and 

"Whereas,  by  such  adherence  and  such  declaration 
made  by  the  said  party,  the  said  party  has  endorsed 
the  principles  of  the  Communist  Internationale  now 
being  held  at  Moscow,  Russia,  which  Internationale 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  3 

is  pledged  to  the  forcible  and  violent  overthrow  of 
all  organized  government  now  existing;  and 

"Whereas,  section  5  of  article  2  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Socialist  party  of  America  provides  that 
each  member  of  the  Socialist  party  of  America  must 
subscribe  to  the  following:  'In  all  my  political  ac- 
tion, while  a  member  of  the  Socialist  party,  I  agree 
to  be  guided  by  the  Constitution  and  platform  of 
that  party';  and 

"Whereas,  section  13,  subdivision  8,  of  the  State 
Constitution  of  the  Socialist  party  of  the  State  of 
New  York  provides:  'A  member  may  be  expelled 
from  the  party,  or  may  be  suspended  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  one  year,  for  the  following  offenses: 
(f)  for  failing,  or  refusing  when  elected  to  a  public 
office,  to  abide  and  carry  out  such  instructions  as 
he  may  have  received  from  the  dues-paying  party 
organization,  or  as  prescribed  by  the  State  or 
National  Constitution';  and 

"Whereas,  such  instructions  may  be  given  by  an 
executive  committee  made  up  in  whole  or  in  part  of 
alien  enemies  owing  allegiance  to  governments  or 
organizations  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  and  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York ;  and 

"Whereas,  the  National  Convention  of  the  Social- 
ist party  of  America,  held  at  St.  Louis,  from  April  7, 
to  about  April  14,  1917,  did  duly  adopt  resolutions 
that  the  only  struggle  which  would  justify  taking  up 
arms  is  the  class  struggle  against  economic  exploita- 
tion and  political  oppression,  and  particularly 
warned  against  the  snare  and  delusion  of  so-called 
defensive  warfare ;  and  such  resolutions  further  pro- 
vided "as  against  the  false  doctrine  of  national 
patriotism,  we  uphold  the  idea  of  international 
working-class  solidarity";  and 

"Whereas,  the  Socialist  party  of  America  did  urge 
its  members  to  refrain  from  taking  part  in  any  way, 
shape  or  manner  in  the  war,  and  did  affirmatively 
urge  them  to  refuse  to  engage  even  in  the  production 
of  munitions  of  war  and  other  necessaries  used  in 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

the  prosecution  of  the  said  war,  and  did  thereby 
stamp  the  said  party  and  all  of  its  members  with  an 
inimicable  attitude  to  the  best  interests  of  the  United 
States  and  the  State  of  New  York;  and 

'^Whereas,  the  said  Louis  Waldman,  August 
Claessens,  Samuel  A.  deWitt,  Samuel  Orr  and 
Charles  Solomon,  members  of  the  Socialist  party  of 
America,  having  been  elected  upon  the  platform  of 
the  Socialist  party  of  America,  have  thereby  sub- 
scribed to  its  principles  and  its  aims  and  purposes, 
against  the  organized  government  of  the  United 
States  and  the  State  of  New  York,  and  have  been 
actively  associated  with  and  connected  with  an  or- 
ganization convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  Espionage 
Act  of  the  United  States; 

"Therefore,  be  it  resolved,  that  the  said  Louis 
Waldman,  August  Claessens,  Samuel  A.  deWitt, 
Samuel  Orr  and  Charles  Solomon,  members  of  the 
Socialist  party,  be  and  they  hereby  are  denied  seats 
in  this  Assembly  pending  the  determination  of  their 
qualifications  and  eligibility  to  their  respective  seats, 
and  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  that  the  investigation  of  the  qualifi- 
cations and  eligibility  of  the  said  persons  to  their 
respective  seats  in  this  Assembly  be  and  it  hereby  is 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciarj^  of  the  As- 
sembly of  the  State  of  New  York,  to  be  hereafter 
appointed,  and  that  the  said  Conamittee  be  em- 
powered to  adopt  such  rules  of  procedure  as  in  its 
judgment  it  deems  proper,  and  that  said  Committee 
be  further  empowered  to  subpoena  and  examine  wit- 
nesses and  docimientary  evidence,  and  to  report  to 
this  body  its  determinations  as  to  the  qualifications 
and  eligibility  of  the  said  Louis  Waldman,  August 
Claessens,  Samuel  A.  deWitt,  Samuel  Orr  and 
Charles  Solomon,  and  each  of  them  respectively,  to  a 
seat  in  this  Assembly." 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I   call  your  attention,  first  of 
all  to  the  object  for  which  this  investigation  has  been 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  5 

instituted,  and  which  is  stated  twice  in  the  resolution. 
One  is  that  the  Assemblymen  mentioned  be  denied  their 
seats  "pending  the  determination  of  their  qualifications 
and  eligibility  to  their  respective  seats";  and  by  the 
other:  you  are  asked  to  report  finally  your  determination 
as  to  "the  qualifications  and  eligibility"  of  these  five 
men.  So  that  the  only  question  before  you  —  the  only 
question  upon  which  you  have  the  power  to  take  testi- 
mony and  to  pass  upon  it  —  is  the  question  of  the  eligi- 
bility and  qualification  of  these  five  men.  You  have  no 
other  authority  under  this  resolution.  I  say  this  for  the 
reason  that  the  nature  of  this  proceeding  and  its  legal 
status  have  never  been  made  quite  clear;  and  in  fact, 
when  you  go  through  the  record,  you  will  find  several 
conflicting  allusions  to  the  nature  of  this  proceeding. 

There  is,  as  you  well  know,  first  of  all,  the  constitu- 
tional provision  to  the  effect  that  each  House  —  and,  of 
course,  also  this  Assembly  —  shall  be  the  judge  of  the 
elections,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  its  own  members ; 
and  that  is  the  only  provision  which  the  Assembly  had 
in  view  in  passing  this  resolution  under  which  you  are 
proceeding. 

You  cannot  adopt  any  other  theory  but  that  these  five 
men  were  denied  seats  not  on  account  of  their  conduct 
in  the  Assembly;  but  they  were  denied  their  seats  at 
the  threshold  of  their  terms,  just  upon  a  challenge  of 
their  qualifications  and  eligibility. 

The  other  provision  which  has  been  mentioned  here 
is  the  one  of  the  Legislative  Law,  section  3,  to  the  effect 
that  each  House  has  the  power  to  expel  any  of  its  mem- 
bers after  the  report  of  a  Committee  to  inquire  into  the 
charges  against  him  shall  have  been  made.  ^  Clearly, 
this  proceeding  does  not  come  within  that  provision ;  first, 
because  the  expulsion  or  suspension  of  these  members 
took  place  before  any  inquiry  into  charges;  and  also 
because  I  think  it  has  been  held  uniformly  —  and  it  is 
quite  clear  from  the  context  —  that  this  section  of  the 
Legislative  Law  deals  only  with  conduct  of  members  of 
the  Assembly  in  office.  It  could  not  be  anything  else. 
For  that  matter  I  doubt  that  the  Legislature  would  have 


6  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

a  right  to  go  back  to  original  qualifications  by  the  enact- 
ment of  a  similar  provision. 

Another  provision  which  also  has  been  referred  to  in 
the  course  of  this  proceeding  is  that  of  the  Public  Officers 
Law,  section  35-a,  reading:  "A  person  holding  any  public 
office  shall  be  removable  therefrom  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided by  law  for  the  utterance  of  any  treasonable  word 
or  words,  or  the  doing  of  any  treasonable  or  seditious  act 
or  acts  during  his  term." 

Now,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  this  provision  has  abso- 
lutely no  application  to  the  case  before  you ;  first,  because 
the  offense  here  mentioned  must  be  committed  during 
the  term  of  oflfice;  and,  of  course,  the  term  of  office  of 
these  Assemblymen  covered  a  period  not  beyond  two 
hours,  during  which  time  they  are  not  charged  with  mis- 
conduct in  any  shape,  form  or  manner.  Furthermore, 
from  the  reading  of  this  provision  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  all  that  it  meant  to  do  was  to  specify  one  of  the 
offenses  referred  to  in  a  general  way  in  the  Legislative 
Laws,  an  offense  for  w^hich  a  member  may  be  expelled, 
because  this  provision  —  "a  person  holding  any  public 
office  shall  be  removed  therefrom  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided by  law"  —  assumes  and  refers  to  a  definite 
procedure  for  such  removal,  mentioned  elsewhere, 

I  do  rLot  suppose  it  will  be  seriously  contended  by 
the  other  side  or  that  any  member  of  the  committee 
would  entertain  any  serious  doubts  on  the  subject, 
namely,  that  these  five  Assemblymen  are  tried  here  as 
to  their  qualifications  or  eligibility  for  office  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
article  3,  section  10.  That  is  one  very  important  in- 
ference we  must  draw  from  the  reading  of  the  resolution. 

Thus  you  are  asked  to  inquire  into  the  eligibility  and 
qualifications  of  these  men  and  to  report  your  determina- 
tion. Does  that  mean  that  you  are  given  a  general 
roving  commission?  Does  that  mean  that  you  are 
limited  in  any  way  in  the  scope  of  your  inquiry  by  the 
provisions  of  that  resolution?  I  hold  it  does  not.  What 
I  maintain,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  the  numerous  pre- 
ambles in  the  resolution  in  form  charging  these  Assembly- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  7 

men  with  the  commission  of  certain  offenses  or  with  the 
possession  of  certain  disqualifications  are  not  meant  to 
be  and  could  not  have  been  meant  to  be  conclusions  in 
the  nature  of  a  judgment.  In  other  words,  when  the 
Assembly,  by  its  resolution  said:  "Whereas,  the  said 
Socialist  party  did  at  its  official  party  convention  held  at 
the  City  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  in  the  month  of  August, 
1919,  declare  its  adherence  and  solidarity  with  the  revo- 
lutionary forces  of  Soviet  Russia,  and  did  pledge  itself 
and  its  members  to  the  furtherance  of  the  International 
Socialist  Revolution,"  and  when  it  further  said,  in  the 
next  clause,  "That  Whereas,  by  such  adherence  and  by 
such  declaration  made  by  the  said  party,  the  said  party 
has  endorsed  the  principles  of  the  Communist  Inter- 
nationale now  being  held  at  Moscow,  Russia,  which 
Internationale  is  pledged  to  the  forcible  and  violent  over- 
throw of  all  organized  governments  now  existing,"  the 
Assembly  did  not  mean  to  convey  the  impression  that  it 
had  investigated  all  these  alleged  facts,  passed  upon 
them,  and  rendered  judgment  as  therein  set  forth,  for  if 
that  had  been  the  case  there  would  be  nothing  to  refer  to 
this  committee.  Also,  it  would  be  a  perfectly  novel  pro- 
cedure to  render  judgment  without  a  trial,  without  a  hear- 
ing, without  any  evidence  to  support  it.  I  take  it,  there- 
fore, Mr.  Chairman,  that  while  the  resolution  is  perhaps  a 
little  unskillfully  worded,  the  intention  was  to  consider 
these  various  recitals  as  charges,  not  as  findings  of  facts, 
somewhat  analogous  to  the  form  of  an  indictment  in  which 
the  defendant  is  charged  in  positive  and  concrete  terms 
with  the  commission  of  certain  offenses,  but  which  does 
not  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  court  but  merely  as  a 
basis  for  trial  and  investigation.  And  I  hold  that  these 
various  recitals  do  not  intend  to  do  more  than  that ;  that 
they  merely  represent  charges  against  these  Assembly- 
men or  their  party  in  concrete  form,  and  if  my  conten- 
tion is  correct,  and  I  don't  see  how  any  other  conclusion 
could  be  held,  it  means  that  this  resolution,  other  than  its 
first  enacting  clause,  is  an  indictment.  And  you  gentle- 
men of  the  committee  are  limited  to  the  investigation  of 
these  charges.    There  is  nothing  else  before  you. 


8  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

In  other  words,  tlie  Assembly  has  said  to  you  as  fol- 
lows: "Whereas,  it  is  chiimed  that  the  party  to  which 
these  five  Assemblymen  belong  is  committed  to  certain 
policies,  and  has  committed  certain  acts,  and  whereas, 
it  is  claimed  that  such  policies  and  acts  are  inconsistent 
with  their  holding  office,  disqualify  them  and  render 
them  ineligible."  Therefore  you  gentlemen  of  the  Com- 
mittee are  directed  by  this  Assembly,  through  this  resolu- 
tion, first  to  ascertain  the  facts.  Are  these  charges  upon 
which  the  Assembly  acted  in  the  suspension  of  these 
members,  are  these  charges  true  or  are  they  false,  or  are 
they  true  in  part  and  false  in  part?  If  so,  in  what  par- 
ticulars are  they  true,  and  in  what  particulars  are  they 
false?  And  if  your  decision  on  the  question  of  fact  is 
that  these  charges  are  supported  by  evidence,  or  any  of 
them  are  supported  by  evidence,  then  you  must  determine 
a  second  question,  as  a  question  of  law,  whether 
upon  the  existence  of  such  facts  as  you  have  ascertained, 
these  men  have  been  rendered  disqualified  or  ineligible 
to  office  by  the  Constitution  or  by  law.  So  that  your 
task  is  a  two-fold  one.  You  must  inquire  into  the  facts, 
and  I  repeat,  the  facts  recited  in  the  resolution,  determine 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  charges,  and  then  determine  as 
a  question  of  law,  whether  or  not  the  existence  of  such 
conditions  render  these  five  men  eligible  or  qualified  to 
hold  the  office  as  members  of  the  Assembly. 

Curiously  enough,  at  the  very  outset  of  this  proceeding, 
at  the  first  session  of  this  Committee,  a  statement  was 
read  by  the  Chairman  presumably  in  behalf  of  the  Com- 
mittee, giving  a  somewhat  different  version  of  the  issues 
before  this  Committee.  A  version  not  in  all  respects  in 
accord  with  the  resolution.  The  source  of  the  statement 
has  never  been  made  clear  in  this  proceeding.  Whether 
it  was  the  individual  opinion  of  the  Chairman,  a  state- 
ment of  the  Committee,  or  in  the  nature  of  an  attempted 
superseding  indictment,  we  do  not  know,  but  the  fact  is 
that  this  statement  contained  several  additional  charges 
not  found  in  the  original  resolution. 

These  were:  First,  that  these  five  Assemblymen  were 
"members  of  a  party  or  society  whose  platform  or  prin- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  9 

ciples  and  whose  doctrines,  as  advocated  today,  call  for 
or  demand,  the  complete  destruction  of  our  form  of  gov- 
ernment by  the  fomentation  of  industrial  unrest,  the 
bringing  into  play  of  force  and  violence  and  direct  action 
of  the  masses.  That  was  not,  the  latter  part,  at  least, 
contained  in  the  original  resolution.  Further,  that  these 
men  affiliated  with  that  party  or  society,  have  subscribed 
to  and  advocate  such  principles,  and  are  in  favor  of  abso- 
lute substitution  of  minority  for  majority  rule."  That, 
likewise,  is  a  new  charge,  not  embraced  in  the  resolution. 

Then,  "that  in  1917,  when  our  country  was  at  w^ar  with 
Germany,  and  summoned  the  strength  of  the  people  to 
that  great  struggle,  the  party  or  society  to  which  these 
men  belonged,  and  to  whose  program  they  have  sub- 
scribed in  open  convention,  and  with  calculated  delibera- 
tion, denounced  the  war  as  criminal,  its  purpose  capital- 
istic, its  motive  profiteering,  and  pledged  every  man  in 
the  party  to  oppose  the  war,  and  all  means  adopted  by 
the  government  for  carrying  on  the  war  in  every  possible 
way." 

And  further,  "that  the  men  herein  named,  by  voice  and 
vote,  in  public  and  in  private,  opposed  every  measure 
intended  to  aid  the  prosecution  of  the  war  to  a  success- 
ful conclusion,  and  gave  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy." 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the 
fact,  that  this  charge  contained  in  the  statement  read  by 
the  Chairman,  is  the  first  attempt  to  lay  any  definite 
charge  upon  the  five  men  individually.  In  the  resolution 
the  only  connection  between  them  and  guilty  conduct  is 
their  membership  in  the  Socialist  party  of  the  United 
States.  There  is  not  a  word;  there  is  not  an  inference 
in  the  entire  resolution  which  would  hold  any  of  these 
five  men  individually  guilty  of  any  misconduct.  Here, 
for  the  first  time,  in  a  supplemental,  informal  statement, 
they  are  charged  individually  that  they  have,  by  their 
votes  and  by  their  voice,  committed  certain  acts  of 
alleged  misconduct. 

Then,  further,  "that  they  secured  their  nomination  and 
procured  their  election  under  the  pretense  to  the  people 
that  they  were  merely  availing  themselves  of  a  legal 


10  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

establisaed  means  for  political  representation;  whereas 
in  truth  and  in  fact  it  is  claimed  that  this  was  done  to 
disguise  and  cover  up  their  true  intent  and  purpose  to 
overthrow  this  government,  peaceably  if  possible;  forc- 
ibly, if  necessary." 

^  This,  the  alleged  procuring  of  their  election  or  nomina- 
tion, by  false  pretenses,  is  likewise  an  entirely  new  sup- 
plemental charge. 

Then,  "the  claim  is  made  that  these  men,  with  others, 
engaged  in  a  large  and  well-organized  conspiracy  to 
subvert  the  due  administration  of  law,  to  destroy  the 
right  to  hold  and  own  private  property,  honestly  ac- 
quired; to  weaken  the  family  ties  which  they  assert  is 
the  seed  of  capitalism,  to  destroy  the  influence  of  the 
Church  and  overturn  the  whole  fabric  of  constitutional 
form  of  government." 

Here,  for  the  first  time,  the  theory  of  a  conspiracy  is 
sprung  upon  us.  In  the  original  resolution  these  five 
members  of  the  Assembly  were  charged  with  membership 
in  a  political  party,  and  it  was  claimed  that  that  polit- 
ical party  had  rendered  itself  unfit  for  membership  of 
the  political  community  in  the  country  by  its  conduct. 

In  the  supplemental  charge,  it  is  no  more  a  party. 
It  is  a  conspiracy  between  these  five  men  and  various 
other  persons  unknown,  to  do  certain  things,  likewise 
not  mentioned  in  the  original  resolution.  And  to  show 
how  far  the  statement  goes  and  how  ill-advised  were 
those  that  prepared  it,  it  will  suffice  to  call  attention 
to  this  particular  charge,  namely,  that  one  of  the  objects 
of  the  alleged  conspiracy  was  to  destroy  the  influence  of 
the  Church. 

The  charge  is  ridiculous.  It  is  controverted  by  the 
evidence,  but  the  point  alone  —  the  idea  of  a  legislative 
body  in  any  State  of  the  Union  making  the  object  of  a 
charge  that  certain  men  are  alleged  to  have  conspired 
to  undermine  the  influence  of  the  Church !  Since  when 
is  the  State,  since  when  is  any  legislative  body  con- 
stituted a  guardian  of  the  influence  of  the  Church? 
Isn't  every  political  and  social  doctrine  of  this  country, 
from  the  early  days  of  the  Colonies,  down  to  this  last 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  11 

day,  absolutely  opposed  to  the  theory  that  it  is  the  busi- 
ness of  the  State  to  preserve  the  influence  of  the  Church? 
Does  not  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  at  least 
by  implication,  emphasize  that  very  foundation  of  our 
social  and  political  life?  And  how  does  this  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  New  York  come  to  charge,  as  an  offense, 
that  any  of  its  members  were  engaged  in  any  conspiracy, 
to  undermine  the  influence  of  the  Church?  I  repeat  the 
charge  is  absurd ;  but  I  also  wish  to  call  attention  of  the 
Committee  to  the  desperate  length  to  which  the  framers 
of  these  charges  went  when  they  prepared  the  supple- 
mental charge. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope  that  the  entire  supple- 
mental statement,  inasmuch  as  it  is  supposed  to  be  part 
of  this  proceeding,  in  so  far  as  it  is  supposed  to  constitute 
a  basis  of  additional  evidence  against  these  Assembly- 
men now  under  charges,  should  be  disregarded  from 
beginning  to  end;  should  be  thrown  out  of  your 
minds,  and  from  your  consideration,  together  with  all  the 
testimony  based  upon  it. 

The  charges  which  were  made  against  us,  the  charges 
which  we  were  summoned  here  to  defend  ourselves  be- 
fore you,  are  charges  formulated  by  this  Assembly.  If 
any  additional  charges  were  to  be  made  against  us,  there 
was  only  one  way  of  effecting  it.  The  Assembly  could 
amend  or  supplement  its  resolution.  You  gentlemen  of 
the  Committee  could  not  do  it.  The  agent  can  not 
extend  the  authority  conferred  upon  him  by  the  principal. 

I  say  you  have  no  legal  right  to  add  any  charges.  You 
had  no  legal  right  to  hear  evidence  on  those  additional 
charges.  You  should  absolutely  disregard  it.  But,  if 
there  was,  at  least,  a  semblance  of  legality  or  propriety 
in  those  additional  charges  made  by  the  Committee,  in 
the  statement  read  by  the  Chairman,  there  certainly  was 
none  in  the  further  additional  charges  made  by  counsel 
for  the  Committee;  and  they  have  made  additional 
charges. 

It  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  general  free  for  all  proceeding. 
Here  are  five  men  brought  before  a  court  on  something 
or  other.  Everybody  who  feels  like  hitting  them,  go  on 
and  do  so  and  do  it  in  your  own  way. 


12  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

Counsel  in  submitting  their  so-called  brief  at  the 
close  of  their  case,  I  repeat,  did  make  definite  and  addi- 
tional charges  against  these  five  men.  These  are,  first 
that  the  provision  contained  in  the  national  constitution 
of  the  Socialist  Party,  prohibiting  members  of  the  party 
from  voting  for  any  appropriation  for  military  or  naval 
purposes,  or  for  war,  that  this  is  in  conflict  with  the  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York 
which  enjoins  upon  the  Legislature  to  make  annual 
appropriation  for  the  maintenance  of  the  militia,  and  that 
consequently  that  fact  disqualifies  these  five  men  from 
taking  seats  in  the  Assembly.  I  am  not  going  at  this 
time  into  the  merits  of  the  contentions.  We  will  do  that 
later,  but  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  is 
distinctly  a  new  charge,  not  contained  in  the  resolution, 
not  contained  even  in  the  Chairman's  statement,  but 
wholly  invented  by  counsel  for  the  Committee. 

Likewise,  the  charge  that  the  Socialist  party  has  for 
its  purpose  the  substitution  of  the  Soviet  form  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  United  States.  That  was  not  contained 
in  any  of  the  previous  charges.  That  was  discovered 
by  counsel  for  the  Committee;  and  so,  likewise,  that 
the  Socialist  party  is  an  anti-national  party ;  and  finally, 
counsel  for  the  Conmiittee  take  it  upon  themselves  to 
prefer,  formulate  and  state  specific  charges  of  individual 
misconduct  against  these  five  Assemblymen.  I  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  when  the  resolution  was  adopted 
there  was  no  such  charge,  or  shadow  of  a  charge,  in  it. 
But,  in  order  to  conform  the  charges  to  the  evidence  im- 
properly introduced,  specific  charges  are  made  against 
the  Assemblymen,  and  learned  counsel  on  the  part 
of  the  Committee  even  go  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  these 
five  men  are  guilty  of  a  violation  or  violations  of  the 
Espionage  Law  and  should  be  convicted  under  the  terms 
of  that  law. 

To  what  extent  counsel  for  the  Committee  have  gone 
in  the  preparation  and  formulation  of  charges  against 
these  five  men  can  be  best  judged  by  this:  that  they 
have  had  the  said  courage  to  take  up  the  records  of  these 
men  in  previous  sessions  of  the  Assembly,  to  drag  out 


SOCIALISM   ON  TRIAL  13 

their  votes,  their  action  in  such  Assembly  and  to  make 
that  a  basis  of  their  criticism.  If  ever  there  was  a  sacred 
right  recognized  in  the  political  fabric  of  our  country  it 
is  the  untrammeled  right  of  an  elected  representative 
to  any  legislature,  State  or  national,  to  speak  his  mind 
freely  and  according  to  the  dictate  of  his  conscience,  to 
vote  and  act  upon  all  measures  before  him  as  an  abso- 
lutely free  and  untrammeled  agent.  And  our  Constitu- 
tion specifically  provides  that  the  acts  and  votes  of 
members  of  the  legislature  should  not  be  questioned  any- 
where else  in  any  proceeding  of  any  kind  including  a 
proceeding  of  this  kind. 

Nor  is  that  all.  Counsel  go  so  far  as  to  make  the 
charge  with  reference  to  August  Claessens  that  during 
his  term  of  office,  previous  terms,  he  had  introduced 
"affirmative  legislation  of  an  offensive  character."  Think 
of  it,  gentlemen.  Consider  it  soberly.  Have  they  come 
down  to  that?  Have  they  come  down  to  the  point  where 
a  measure  introduced  by  a  member  of  your  House  or  of 
any  other  legislative  body  which  to  him,  we  must  assume, 
represents  a  measure  of  public  welfare,  that  such  a 
measure  of  affirmative  legislation,  not  personal  miscon- 
duct, not  personal  misbehavior,  but  a  measure  of  affirm- 
ative legislation,  subsequently  happens  not  to  meet  with 
the  approval  of  learned  counsel  for  your  Committee  and 
is  made  a  basis  of  a  proceeding  for  removal  from  the 
A^embly?  I  merely  point  that  out  to  show  to  your 
Committee  the  length  to  which  .this  modification  of 
charges  has  gone,  the  piling  of  charges  upon  charges,  and 
I  again  repeat  that  with  respect  to  all  these  new  charges 
discovered  by  counsel  for  your  Committee,  they  are  not 
before  you.  You  have  no  right  to  go  into  them.  You 
have  no  authority  from  your  parent  body  for  it.  You 
must  disregard  them  and  disregard  all  the  evidence  in 
connection  with  them.  This  proceeding  otherwise  will 
certainly  set  a  precedent,  a  very  novel  precedent  in  the 
jurisprudence  of  this  country. 

Imagine  for  a  moment  a  defendant  charged  with 
larceny  brought  to  trial.  The  District  Attorney  tries 
the  case  upon  an  indictment  of  forgery.    The  judge  sub- 


li  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

mits  it  to  tlie  j  ury  upon  the  theory  of  arson  and  perhaps 
the  jury  brings  out  a  verdict  of  assault  and  battery. 
This  is  practically  what  you  have  before  you  for  the 
record  will  show  that  even  with  all  this  latitude,  with 
all  this  superstructure  of  various  charges,  the  evidence  is 
not  confined  to  the  charges. 


The    Evidence 

Now,  with  reference  to  that  evidence  there  is  one  point 
I  wish  to  make,  and  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  I  wish 
to  impress  that  upon  your  minds  as  strongly  as  I  can. 
I  say  regardless  of  the  question  of  the  relevancy  or 
irrelevancy  of  the  testimony  offered  here  and  regardless 
of  the  intention  of  my  friends  on  the  other  side,  whom  I 
do  not  charge  with  wilful  malintentions,  I  say  the  evi- 
dence so  absolutely  distorts  the  vision  of  those  who  read 
it  as  to  be  absolutely  worthless  and  worse.  My  criticism 
is  based  upon  two  points,  not  so  much  on  the  point  that 
utterances,  platforms,  declarations  and  other  statements 
of  the  party  or  certain  individuals  have  been  miscon- 
strued or  misread.  That  may  pass.  But  there  is  an- 
other important  point  and  that  is  this.  The  testimony  is 
so  one-sided  as  to  absolutely  blur  the  vision.  Let  me 
tell  you  what  I  mean  by  it. 

The  Socialist  movement  is  about  70  to  75  years  old 
in  its  modern  phases.  It  has  produced  a  literature  of 
hundreds  upon  hundreds  of  volumes  in  all  modern  lan- 
guages. The  Socialist  movement  in  the  United  States 
is  almost  half  a  century  old.  The  present  party  is  20 
years  old.  It  has  had  numerous  conventions,  national, 
state  and  local.  It  has  adopted  hundreds  of  official 
proclamations  of  all  kinds.  Its  press  is  large.  Take  for 
instance  the  Call  alone  that  has  been  cited  here  so  often. 
It  is  a  daily.  There  are  365  editions  of  it  every  year. 
It  is  in  its  13th  year  of  existence.  Consequently  it  has 
published  roughly  about  4,500  numbers.  Each  of  them 
contains  an  average  of  from  four  to  five  editorials  or 
contributed  articles.  So  that  this  paper  alone  has  pub- 
lished about  20,000  different  editorials  and  contributed 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  15 

articles.  Now,  this  its  onlj^  one  paper.  The  Socialist 
party  at  all  times  has  had  an  average  of  about  100 
papers,  daily,  weekly,  monthly,  in  English  and  other 
languages,  supporting  its  policies.  Imagine  how  many 
statements  of  all  kinds  these  have  contained.  The 
Socialist  party  is  always  campaigning,  almost  every 
member  is  a  speaker,  a  propagandist.  Millions  of 
Socialists'  speeches  have  been  made  in  this  country  within 
the  last  couple  of  decades.  Now,  here  is  my  point. 
Every  indiscreet  statement  that  creeps  into  our  literature, 
our  press  or  our  public  forum,  every  foolish,  irrespon- 
sible statement —  and  such  are  bound  to  occur  occasion- 
ally—  is  at  once  seized  upon  by  our  professional 
opponents,  the  anti-Socialist  leagues,  the  National  Civic 
Federation,  and  they  are  immortalized ;  they  are  printed, 
and  transmitted  from  book  to  book  and  from  paper  to 
paper  and  then  all  are  collected  and  turned  over  ready- 
made  to  a  Lusk  Committee  or  any  other  committee  that 
investigates  great  social  problems.  Learned  counsel  on 
the  other  side,  I  make  bold  to  state,  have  practically 
every  incriminating  utterance  of  any  kind  ever  made  by 
the  Socialist  party  or  any  of  its  subdivisions  or  any  of  its 
members  or  any  of  its  adherents  and  of  everyone  who 
ever  called  himself  a  Socialist.  They  have  it  all,  and 
what  do  they  produce  before  you,  twenty,  thirty,  forty 
utterances  and  they  ask  you  to  judge  the  character  of  the 
Socialist  party  by  these.  What  becomes  of  the  thousands 
and  hundreds  of  thousands,  the  millions  of  other  ex- 
pressions of  the  Socialist  party  which  are  not  brought  up 
here?  Do  you  think  you  can  get  a  real  conception  of 
the  Socialist  movement  by  reading  these  conglomerations, 
these  collections  of  slip-ups,  if  you  want,  and  nothing 
else;  nothing  of  the  whole  literature,  proclamations, 
speeches,  statements  of  the  Socialist  party?  Why, 
gentlemen,  imagine,  if  you  please;  imagine  I  am  a  for- 
eign correspondent  in  the  United  States  and  I  am  re- 
porting back  to  my  country  conditions  in  the  United 
States.  I  am  perfectly  truthful  except  that  I  select  my 
material.  I  don't  care  for  marriages.  I  don't  care  for 
births.    I  don't  care  for  ordinary  politics.    I  don't  care 


16  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

for  the  every-day  life  of  the  United  States,  but  every 
crime,  every  murder,  every  assault,  every  lynching,  every 
strike,  every  boycott,  every  political  scandal,  I  report 
at  once.  I  am  absolutely  truthful.  In  every  case  I 
am  painstakingly  truthful.  What  conception  will  they 
get  on  the  other  side?  Why  that  the  United  States  is  a 
country  in  perpetual  war.  That  it  is  the  most  lawless 
nation  existing.  Would  that  be  correct?  No.  Would 
they  have  a  right  to  arrive  at  tliosc  conclusions  upon  the 
basis  of  the  testimony  before  them?  Yes.  Is  the  testi- 
mony false?  Not  formally  so,  but  actually  it  is.  It  is 
true  in  the  dry  word.  It  is  a  lie  in  its  soul  and  substance. 
And  that  is,  gentlemen,  the  nature  of  the  testimony  be- 
fore you.  Think  of  it.  To  drag  in  here  the  one  indis- 
creet article  written  by  Victor  L.  Berger  in  1909,  eleven 
years  ago.  He  is  a  man  sixty  years  old,  the  editor  of  a 
daily  paper,  writing  day  after  day,  and  he  once  in  a 
moment  of  caprice  or  whim,  as  it  may  happen,  writes 
one  article  which  makes  him  the  good-natured  butt  of 
his  friends.  It  doesn't  represent  him  truly.  It  isn't  a 
very  incriminating  article  if  you  read  it  knowing  Victor 
L.  Berger,  but  it  contains  some  rather  extravagant  state- 
ments. Gentlemen,  what  professional  writer  doesn't  have 
one  such  slip-up  on  his  conscience  in  a  career  of  thirty  or 
forty  years  of  daily  newspaper  work?  That  is  brought 
up  here.  That  is  paraded  before  you.  From  that  you 
are  asked  to  infer  not  only  that  Victor  L.  Berger  is  a 
firebrand  (and  he  is  just  the  opposite),  but  that  the 
party  endorses  and  approves  of  that  one  little  slip  of  his 
and  that  we  stand  for  violent  revolution.  There  is  a  man 
by  the  name  of  Pcrrin,  who  is  engaged  on  the  Call.  He 
writes  an  article,  a  shocking  article,  I  admit.  We  all 
admit  it.  We  read  it  the  next  day  and  the  telephone  wire 
of  the  Call  begins  to  get  busy  with  inquiries.  *'How 
does  an  article  of  this  kind  come  to  be  printed  in  the 
Call?"  The  man  is  fired,  but  the  article  is  here  and 
it  is  asked  of  you  to  make  it  a  basis  of  your  decision  of 
the  qualification,  or  the  eligibility  of  these  five  men,  who 
at  that  time  were  not  of  age  and  who  at  no  time  approved 
of  the  article,  because  the  Socialist  party  distinctly  dis- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  17 

approved  of  it.  Then  they  produce  every  kind  of  gossip 
they  can  possibly  get.  There  is  a  man  who  ran  against 
one  of  these  defendants  and  was  beaten  by  him.  Natu- 
rally he  is  somewhat  sore  and  he  has  certain  unfavorable 
opinions  about  his  opponent.  He  is  allowed  to  testify  as 
to  them.  Then  there  is  another  man  who  goes  around 
and  heckles  speakers  and  gets  answers.  He  makes  no 
notes.  The  speeches  are  oral.  In  due  course  he  comes 
here  and  gives  his  version  of  them,  and  it  goes.  Finally 
they  call  an  expert,  an  expert  on  Socialism,  the  only  ex- 
pert you  gentlemen,  counsel  for  the  Committee,  have 
called.  You  know  Socialism  by  this  time  is  not  a  dark 
mystery.  It  is  a  perfectly  well-known  subject.  The 
libraries  are  filled  with  volumes  on  it.  It  is  a  science. 
It  is  taught  in  the  colleges  and  universities  as  part  of 
political  economy.  Whether  you  agree  or  disagree  with 
it,  it  is  there  and  it  is  a  recognized  science.  You  want 
authorities,  non-Socialists.  Why  don't  you  call  some- 
one who  has  made  a  study  of  it,  call  the  professor  of 
any  university,  a  non-Socialist,  but  who  knows  the  sub- 
ject—  Professor  Ely,  Professor  Commons.  You  do  not. 
But  there  is  a  certain  man,  a  professional  anti-Socialist, 
who  knows  his  Socialism  from  the  various  excerpts  I 
have  referred  to  and  from  talks  with  individual  Social- 
ists. He  comes  before  you  and  you  ask  him  what  is  the 
Socialist  attitude  on  religion?  "Oh,  hostile."  How  do  you 
know?  "I  spoke  to  thousands  of  Socialists  about  it."  And 
if  you  don't  believe  him  all  you  have  to  do  is  to  call 
those  thousands  of  unnamed  Socialists  in  rebuttal.  That 
is  easy. 

You  might  as  well  take  a  policeman  who  makes  love 
to  the  maid  of  a  great  authority  on  geology  and  call  him 
as  an  expert  on  geology  because  he  knows  all  the 
kitchen  gossip  of  the  authority  on  geology.  That  is  pre- 
cisely what  Collins  did.  Gentlemen,  to  all  those  who 
know  anything  about  the  subject,  that  is  a  joke.  Before 
a  serious  body  of  this  kind,  in  a  proceeding  of  this 
importance,  to  introduce  these  anti-Socialist  peddlers  of 
rumors  an  an  authority  when  you  could  have  had^  so 
many  competent  authorities,  by  no  means  pro-Socialists 


18  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

—  people  who  liavc  made  n  study  of  it  and  who  have 
the  proper  qualifications! 

The  Chairman.  —  We  will  take  a  recess  until  two 
o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  12:35  p.m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until 
two  o'clock.) 


AFTERNOON  SESSION,  2:15  p.m. 

The  Chairman.  —  Proceed. 

Mr.  Hillquit.  —  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been  en- 
deavoring at  the  outset  of  my  remarks  to  prove  to  you 
that  many  of  the  charges,  and  much  of  the  evidence  be- 
fore you,  are  irrelevant  to  the  issues  in  this  proceeding, 
and  that  they  are  outside  and  beyond  the  scope  of  your 
authority. 

The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  charges  have  been  made; 
that  the  evidence  is  on  record,  and  I  am,  therefore,  at 
this  time  to  meet  it  —  all  the  charges  and  all  the  evi- 
dence, and  for  the  convenience  of  the  presentation  and 
discussion,  I  have  summarized  the  charges  under  eight 
main  heads. 

They  are  as  follows: 

First:  That  the  Socialist  Party  is  a  revolutionary 
organization. 

Second:  That  it  seeks  to  attain  its  ends  by  means  of 
violence. 

Third:  That  it  does  not  sincerely  believe  in  political 
action,  and  that  its  politics  is  only  a  blind,  or 
camouflage. 

Fourth :  That  it  is  unpatriotic  and  disloyal. 

Fifth:  That  it  unduly  controls  public  officials  elected 
on  its  ticket. 

Sixth:  That  it  owes  allegiance  to  a  foreign  power, 
known  as  the  Internationale. 

Seventh:  That  it  approves  of  the  Soviet  Government 
of  Russia,  and  seeks  to  introduce  a  similar  regime  in  the 
United  States;  and,  finally, 

Eight:  That  the  Assemblymen  personally  opposed  the 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  19 

prosecution  of  the  war  and  gave  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
enemy. 

I  think  you  will  find  as  we  proceed  in  the  discussion  of 
these  points,  that  every  charge,  major  or  minor,  comes 
within  one  of  these  heads.  I  wish  to  call  your  attention 
at  this  time  that  the  only  charge  against  the  Assembly- 
men individually,  improperly  introduced  as  we  claim  it 
to  be,  is  the  last  or  eighth  charge.  To  this  charge  I 
expect  my  colleague,  Mr.  Stedman,  to  reply.  Personally, 
I  am  concerned  in  this  argument  with  the  first  seven 
charges.  All  of  these  charges,  if  you  examine  them  care- 
fully, are  distinctly  charges  against  the  Socialist  party 
as  such.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  Socialist  party  of 
the  United  States  that  is  on  trial  before  you.  On  its 
qualification  to  be  a  member  of  the  political  community 
of  this  country,  your  decision  will  depend.  Hence,  it  is 
very  important  for  your  committee  to  know  something 
more  or  less  definite  about  this  Socialist  party  which  is 
on  trial  before  you. 

Socialism 

We  come  thus  squarely,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen 
of  the  Committee,  to  the  question:  What  is  the  Socialist 
Party  of  the  United  States?  What  are  its  aims,  and  its 
methods?  I  think  that  it  is  highly  important  for  all 
of  you  gentlemen  to  understand  that,  or  at  least  our 
view  of  it. 

It  would  be  somewhat  too  simple,  almost  childishly 
naive,  to  ascribe  the  Socialist  movement  in  this  country, 
in  every  country  in  the  world,  a  movement  which  has 
sprung  up  many  decades  ago,  a  movement  which  has 
proceeded  and  is  growing  rapidly  and  steadily,  a  move- 
ment which  is  in  control  of  a  number  of  very  important 
countries  of  Europe,  I  say  it  would  be  childish  to  ascribe 
it  to  the  machinations,  to  the  malevolence  or  malice  of  a 
few  agitators  determining  to  create  a  movement  of  oppo- 
sition in  order  to  raise  disturbances. 

A  movement  of  such  age  and  such  achievements,  as 
well  as  dimensions,  must  have  some  more  real,  some  more 


20  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

rational  cause;  and  I  believe  that  if  the  special  Legis- 
lative Committee  wanted  to  investigate  into  the  cause 
and  conditions  of  radical  movements  in  this  country  — 
and  your  Committee  also  —  would  start  with  this 
inquiry:  "What  causes  have  produced  the  Socialist  move- 
ment here  or  elsewhere,"  you  would  come  very  much 
closer  to  a  scientific,  satisfactory  and  rational  solution 
of  the  question  confronting  you. 

We  Socialists  differ  from  the  other  political  parties  in 
our  first,  and  cardinal,  assumption,  which  is  that  organ- 
ized government  everywhere  has  for  its  primary  object 
and  function  to  secure  the  physical,  mental,  moral  and 
spiritual  well-being  of  its  members.  W'e  do  not  consider 
the  government  as  a  mere  policeman,  sitting  over  us  and 
passing  upon  our  daily  quarrels.  We  believe  the  func- 
tions of  the  government  are  more  substantial,  more  vital ; 
and  in  that  we  really  do  no  more  than  endorse,  and  per- 
haps extend,  the  very  well-known  declaration  which  the 
founders  of  this  republic  have  made  popular  all  over  the 
world,  and  that  is  that  the  object  of  every  government 
and  of  every  people  is  to  attain  and  maintain  the  right 
to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  To  us,  these 
are  not  phrases  to  be  recited  glibly  on  the  Fourth  of  July. 
To  us,  this  declaration  is  a  living  truth. 

What  we  mean  when  we  assert  the  right  of  the  people 
to  life  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  actually  live;  not 
merely  to  breathe,  but  to  have  the  means  of  maintaining 
their  lives;  to  have  food,  to  have  clothing,  to  have 
shelter,  to  have  all  the  means  to  sustain  modern  civilized 
life. 

When  M'e  speak  of  liberty  we  do  not  mean  merely  a 
condition  outside  of  jail.  We  mean  by  it  actual  polit- 
ical and  economic  independence;  the  freedom  of  men 
from  men ;  the  equal  freedom  of  all  insofar  as  such  free- 
dom is  compatible  with  the  existence  of  organized  gov- 
ernment. 

And  when  we  speak  of  the  right  to  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  we  mean  the  right  —  the  concrete  right  —  of 
every  man,  woman  and  child  to  sunshine,  to  air, 
to  enjoyment,  to  amusement;  to  the  blessings  of  civiliza- 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  21 

tion;  to  the  products  of  arts  and  science.  We  mean  by 
it  the  right  to  enjoy  life  as  fully,  as  nobly,  as  the  best 
members  of  our  coramunity  are  privileged  to  do. 

Starting  out  with  these  premises  we  say  that 
neither  our  government  nor  any  other  modern  govern- 
ment has  at  all  achieved  those  fundamental  objects  or 
functions  for  which  they  have  been  organized. 

We  assert  that  every  advanced  country  can  to-day 
easily  assure  the  physical,  moral  and  mental  well-being 
of  every  member  of  such  country;  that  it  can  produce 
with  the  modern  resources  all  the  food,  all  the  clothing, 
all  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  that  it  need  not  suffer  any 
one,  any  member  of  the  community,  to  go  hungry  or  to 
succumb  in  misery  in  their  daily  existence. 

Take  our  own  country,  the  United  States,  and 
we  probably  have  the  most  striking  illustration  of  this 
proposition.  Here  is  a  great  and  powerful  country, 
3,000  miles  wide,  3,000  long,  blessed  wath  every  element 
of  natural  wealth.  The  land  is  abundant,  mostly  fertile. 
It  yields  products  of  practically  every  clime  and  yields 
them  in  abundance.  We  have  inexhaustible  wealth  of 
metals  and  minerals  and  forests;  w^e  have  coast  lines  on 
both  sides  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other. 
We  have  ports  and  waterways,  and  we  have  an  alert, 
active  capable  population  of  about  120,000,000,  of  whom 
the  vast  majority  are  ready  and  eager  to  lend  a  hand 
in  the  production  of  the  wealth  required  for  the  suste- 
nance of  the  life  of  the  nation.  We  have  developed  the 
modern  processes  of  wealth  production  to  such  an 
extent  that  we  can  create  to-day  ten  times,  in  some  cases 
100  times,  more  than  our  fathers  or  forefathers  could 
with  the  same  effort,  and  we  have  an  industrial  organiza- 
tion the  like  of  which  history  has  never  known.  If  all 
this  wealth,  if  all  these  resources,  if  all  these  great  indus- 
trial factors  had  been  scientifically,  rationally  and 
reasonably  organized,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world 
why  there  should  be  slums  in  any  of  our  cities,  why  there 
should  be  under-feeding  of  children,  and  appalling  child 
mortality,  why  there  should  be  want,  why  there  should 


22  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

be  misery,  why  there  should  be  those  ghastly  struggles 
for  existence  going  on  in  the  heart  of  this  country  day 
after  day  everywhere. 

Capitalism 

But  our  country  and  our  industrial  system  are  not 
organized  rationally.  In  fact,  they  are  not  organized 
at  all.  The  people  of  this  country,  as  the  people  of  every 
other  country,  do  not  own  their  country,  and  that  is  the 
fundamental  indictment  of  Socialism  against  present 
conditions.  It  is  not  the  people  of  the  United  States  — 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  million  men,  women  and 
children  who  constitute  that  people,  that  own  the  United 
States. 

There  is  the  tremendous  stretch  of  land,  a  large  slice 
of  the  surface  of  the  globe,  that  if  anything,  should  be 
the  common  heritage  of  all  those  who  live  on  it,  but  it 
is  not.  It  has  been  parceled  out  into  lots  and  plots,  and 
turned  over  by  the  gradual  processes  to  a  comparatively 
speaking,  small  number  of  landowners,  who  own  the  sur- 
face of  the  United  States,  and  by  whose  permission  the 
rest  of  the  people  who  own  no  land,  the  vast  majority, 
are  tolerated  upon  the  surface  of  this  country. 

And  when  we  come  to  the  natural  wealth  below  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  the  vast  stocks  of  minerals  and 
metals,  the  stocks  which  a  benevolent  Nature  has  created 
in  the  course  of  many  thousands  of  years,  and  upon 
which  today  we  depend  for  our  light,  for  our  heat,  for 
our  energy  in  the  production  of  wealth,  we  find  another 
group,  and  a  comparatively  small  group,  of  our  fellow 
citizens  who  hold  that  against  the  rest  of  the  whole 
country,  and  say,  "this  is  ours;  the  Almighty  God  has 
not  meant  the  sources  of  life  for  the  people  who  need  it 
for  their  lives  —  no,  he  has  reserved  it  for  us  to  turn  it 
into  franchises,  to  capitalize  it  into  stocks  and  bonds,  to 
derive  profits,  and  make  our  individual  fortunes  on  it"; 
and  so,  with  the  oil  wells,  and  so  with  the  great  arteries 
of  trade  and  commerce  and  life  in  this  country,  the  rail- 
roads, and  so  with  our  factories,  with  the  marvellous 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  23 

machinery  of  modern  production  created  by  the  agency 
of  many,  many  generations  past  as  well  as  present,  and 
the  natural  heritage  of  all  men.  They  are  owned  by  a 
small  minority,  comparatively  speaking,  a  handful  of  the 
people  who  hold  it  as  against  the  rest  of  the  country. 

So  that  the  situation  is  this,  for  the  majority  of  the 
people,  the  working  class  of  the  United  States :  they  stand 
there  to-day  ready,  willing,  eager  and  capable  of  turn- 
ing those  natural  resources,  that  raw  wealth,  into  con- 
sumable products  for  themselves,  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren, to  turn  it  into  food,  into  clothes,  into  dwellings,  to 
turn  it  into  other  necessaries.  They  cannot  do  it  at 
this  time  without  the  use  of  modern  implements  of  labor ; 
that  they  cannot  do  it  without  the  natural  resources,  the 
raw  material,  and  between  them  and  these  sources  of 
their  lives  stands  that  small  capitalist  class  and  says, 
"Hold  on,  this  is  ours,  the  land  and  the  fullness  thereof, 
the  land  and  all  above  it  and  all  below  it,  is  ours,  and 
if  you  want  to  live,  if  you  want  to  eat,  if  you  want  to 
work,  you  must  first  secure  a  license  from  us  and  such 
license  we  shall  not  give  you  unless  you  stipulate  to  pay 
us  a  tribute,  unless  you  stipulate  to  turn  over  to  us  for 
our  personal  profits  a  large  and  substantial  portion  of 
the  product  of  your  toil." 

The  great  masses  of  the  American  people,  as  the 
great  masses  of  the  people  in  every  modern  country,  are 
held  in  submission  to  this  small  class  of  industrial  auto- 
crats. They  work  or  they  starve,  according  to  the  dic- 
tate of  that  class.  If  a  time  arrives  when  it  does  not 
pay  the  owning  class  to  continue  the  operation  of  the 
industries  of  the  country,  they  are  not  responsible  to 
anybody  for  continuing  it.  They  shut  their  factories, 
their  mines  and  mills,  they  throw  millions  of  workers  out 
of  employment,  cause  the  direst  poverty,  because  it  suits 
their  business  ends,  and  the  whole  country  stands  there, 
powerless  to  interfere  with  this  industrial  autocracy; 
absolutely  impotent  to  assert  its  own  will.  Again  it 
bows. 

And  so  we  have  all  the  social  evils  of  modern  days 
resulting  from  this  condition;  the  few  millionaires  and 


24  SOCIALISM    ON    TRIAL 

multi-millionaires,  and  the  millions  and  millions  of  men, 
women  and  children  whose  whole  life  is  one  of  toil  and 
privation;  who  are  deprived  of  all  joy,  all  sunshine,  all 
life  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  And  so  we  have  the 
class  of  the  idle,  who  take  pleasure  after  pleasure  with- 
out rendering  any  useful  service  to  society;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  the  children  of  the  poor  beginning  their 
lives  —  their  joyless  lives  —  in  the  factories,  at  a  tender 
age,  growing  up  stunted  physically  and  mentally,  making 
miserable  citizens,  a  weak  foundation  for  the  hope  of 
future  generations. 

We  have  made  that  indictment;  we  have  made  it  more 
than  once,  and  once  in  a  while,  we  are  met  with  this 
lucid  statement,  "Well,  if  you  don't  like  this  country 
what  is  there  to  hold  you?  Take  the  first  ship  and  go 
elsewhere."  There  has  been  even  some  implication  of 
an  argument  of  this  kind  in  the  course  of  this  hearing, 
and  I  want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  say  and  to  assert 
that  an  argument  more  silly  and  more  immoral  has 
never  been  advanced.  I  say  "silly"  because  it  isn't  the 
United  States  alone  in  which  these  conditions  prevail. 
They  prevail  in  every  modern  country.  Our  complaint 
is  not  specifically  against  the  regime  or  system  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  an  indictment  of  the  whole  civilized 
or  capitalist  Society. 

And  then  again,  "Leave  this  country;  go  to  a  country 
that  suits  you  better."  Just  think  of  that  argument, 
gentlemen.  Suppose  in  this  city  of  Albany  you  have  by 
misfortune  a  corrupt,  incompetent  administration  on  ac- 
count of  which  you  find  your  streams  polluted,  the  sani- 
tary conditions  neglected,  your  health  menaced,  your  ex- 
istence poisoned.  A  number  of  citizens  get  together  and 
protest  against  these  conditions  and  against  this  admin- 
istration and  its  misdeeds  and  the  political  ring  turns 
to  such  protesting  citizens  and  says,  "Gentlemen,  if  con- 
ditions in  Albany  don't  suit  you  there  are  plenty  of  other 
cities  in  the  United  States.    You  may  go  elsewhere." 

Suppose,  to  take  another  illustration,  you  and  I  and 
somebody  else  have  entered  into  a  partnership  in  busi- 
ness and  have  given  our  joint  efforts  to  the  business  for 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  25 

years  and  years.  At  a  certain  moment  I,  as  one  of  the 
partners,  discover  that  another  partner  of  mine  has  been 
inefficient,  perhaps  dishonest,  that  the  business  is  suffer- 
ing, going  bad,  our  joint  interest  being  gradually  de- 
stroyed. I  try  to  introduce  reforms  in  our  business 
management  and  methods  and  the  very  partner  who 
profits  by  his  own  dishonesty  turns  to  me  and 
says,  "If  you  don't  like  the  way  we  conduct  this  business 
there  is  nothing  to  hold  you  in  this  partnership ;  you  can 
get  out."  You  wouldn't  consider  this  a  good  argument, 
and  so  exactly  does  the  other  argument  present  itself  to 
us.  Gentlemen,  bear  in  mind  once  and  for  all  that  we 
take  the  position  that  America  is  ours  just  as  much  as  it 
is  yours;  that  America  is  ours  just  as  much  as  it  is  that  of 
any  other  class  of  persons  or  individuals  in  this  country. 
These  men,  here,  these  five  Assemblymen  under  charges, 
come  here  as  representatives  of  many  thousands  of  work- 
ingmen  who  have  given  their  youth,  probably  the  greater 
part  of  their  lives  to  the  enhancement  of  the  wealth  of 
this  country,  who  have  been  instrumental  in  building  up 
this  country,  in  making  it  what  it  is,  great  and  powerful 
and  prosperous,  and  these  men  have  a  right  to  say 
to-day  that  the  wealth  which  they  have  helped  create  be 
equitably  distributed  and  that  the  workers  have  a 
proper  share  of  it  and  a  proper  share  of  life.  They 
are  not  going  to  quit  this  country.  They  do  not  have 
to  quit  this  country  any  more  than  you.  They  propose 
to  stay.  They  propose  to  contribute  the  best  that  is  in 
them  for  the  advancement,  for  the  benefit,  for  the  better- 
ment of  this  country  and  also  for  the  bringing  in  of  a 
better,  juster  social  system  of  wealth  production  and 
wealth  distribution. 

Had  it  been  merely  an  economic  question  perhaps  it 
would  not  have  been  so  vital,  but  it  isn't  a  purely  eco- 
nomic question.  It  is  very  much  more  than  that.  It 
goes  to  the  very  substance,  to  the  very  life  nerve  of  our 
national  existence.  You  see  this  condition,  the  condi- 
tion of  the  small  class  owning  the  country,  and  a  large 
populous  class  working  for  it,  has  created  what  we  have 
referred  to  here  in  the  evidence,  from  time  to  time,  as  the 


20  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

class  struggle,  and  we  have  been  I'oolishly  charged  with 
fomenting  that  class  struggle.  Do  you  know,  gentlemen, 
we  are  the  only  political  party  that  not  only  is  not  fo- 
menting class  struggles  but  tries  to  eliminate  all  classes 
and  all  class  struggles.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is 
that,  under  present  conditions,  there  is  nothing  but  a 
struggle  of  classes  in  the  country.  You  may  not  call  it 
struggle ;  you  may  call  it  antagonism,  but  it  is  a  persist- 
ent and  vital  antagonism. 

And  it  operates  throughout  the  entire  field  of  our  life 
and  economy.  It  exists  between  employer  and  worker 
everywhere,  whether  it  expresses  itself  in  strikes  or 
walkouts  or  blacklists  or  in  no  overt  acts  at  all;  and 
whether  the  personal  relations  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee are  very  bitter,  or  on  the  contrary  very  friendly. 
The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  employer,  under  present 
conditions,  must  see  to  it  that  he  makes  profits,  must  see 
to  it  that  he  pays  as  little  in  wages  as  he  possibly  can, 
and  that  he  gets  as  much  out  of  his  worker  as  he  possibly 
can.  It  is  the  law  of  present  economics.  It  would  mean 
business  extinction  if  he  were  to  follow  it. 

The  worker  who  has  nothing  but  his  labor  power  must, 
whether  he  wants  or  not,  see  to  it  that  he  gets  every 
dollar  of  wages  he  can;  that  he  conserves  his  energy  — 
his  only  property  —  as  much  as  possible;  and  between 
these  two  opposing  interests  there  is,  and  must  be,  a  con- 
stant conflict.  There  is  warfare  between  employer  and 
employee;  there  is  a  constant  competitive  warfare  be- 
tween capitalists  of  different  classes,  and  within  each 
class  separately.  You  know  all  about  it.  You  know  the 
history  of  our  great  financial  and  industrial  institutions. 
You  know  how  they  have  been  built  up  on.  the 
ruin  of  smaller  industrial  concerns.  You  know 
how  they  have  been  devouring  their  smaller  brethren. 
And  there  is  just  the  same  war  between  worker 
and  worker,  because  whenever,  in  times  of  industrial 
depression  particularly,  a  job  is  open,  there  are 
hundreds  of  workers  looking  for  it,  each  one  eager  to 
get  it,  each  one  —  or  most  of  them  —  having  wives  and 


SOCIALISM   ON  TRIAL  27 

children  to  support;  each  of  them  ready  to  take  any  pay 
so  long  as  he  is  allowed  the  privilege  of  working  and 
earning  some  wages,  and  underbidding  each  other  and 
cutting  the  wages  against  each  other  and  bringing  chil- 
dren from  their  homes  to  work  and  compete  with  the 
adults  and  bringing  their  wives  into  the  factories  to 
compete  against  the  men  —  all  because  necessity  compels 
them. 

And  there  is  antagonism  between  landlord  and  tenant ; 
there  is  antagonism  between  producer  and  consumer.  It 
is  not  an  industrial  system  operated  for  the  benefit  of 
all  the  members  of  the  community.  It  is  a  system  of 
strife  and  violence,  where  each  is  engaged  in  war  against 
all,  and  all  against  each. 

And  in  this  war  of  interests,  every  class  and  every 
individual  of  necessity  tries  to  exert  the  greatest  possible 
power  in  its,  or  his,  behalf:  and  so  it  comes  that  the 
capitalist  classes,  the  most  powerful  classes,  in  order  to 
maintain  their  supremacy,  go  into  politics  and  see  to 
it  that  their  interests  are  in  control  of  the  government 
and  all  its  departments  as  much  as  they  can.  All  we 
have  been  hearing  and  saying  about  political  corrup- 
tion and  machinations  in  this  country  in  the  last  decades 
—  and  many  volumes  have  been  written  on  the  sub- 
ject—  have  had  their  mainspring  in  this  desire  of  the 
privileged  classes  to  maintain  their  privileges  against  the 
people;  and  all  the  corruption  of  our  schools  and  of  our 
presses  and  of  our  public  institutions  —  of  which  there 
have  been  many  and  various  public  indictments  —  had 
their  mainspring  in  the  same  source. 

This  is  not  a  mere  Socialist  contention.  No!  It  is 
borne  out  by  the  naked  facts  and  conditions  in  this 
country.  Only  so  far  back  as  1914  the  Industrial  Rela- 
tions Commission  —  a  Commission  appointed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  composed  of  men  who 
may  be  considered  more  or  less  neutrals  in  the  class  war, 
and  at  any  rate  not  Socialists  —  found  and  published  the 
following  illuminating  facts: 

Speaking  of  certain  industrial  communities  dominated 
by  corporations,  they  say:  "In  such  communities  demo- 


28  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

cratic  government  docs  not  as  a  rule  exist  except  in  name 
or  form,  and  as  a  consequence  there  now  exists  within 
the  body  of  our  Republic  industrial  communities  which 
are  virtually  principalities,  oppressive  to  those  dependent 
upon  them  for  a  livelihood  and  a  menace  to  the  peace 
and  welfare  of  the  nation.  The  wealth  of  the  country 
between  1890  and  1912  rose  from  $65,000,000,000  to 
$187,000,000,000,  or  188  per  cent;  whereas,  the  aggre- 
gate income  of  wage  earners  in  transportation  and  mining 
and  factories  has  risen  between  1890  and  1909  only  95 
per  cent.  It  was  found  that  the  income  of  almost  two- 
thirds  of  these  families  was  less  than  $750  per  year,  and 
almost  one-third  were  less  than  $500;  the  average  for 
all  being  $721.  The  average  size  of  these  families  was 
5.6  members.  Elaborate  studies  of  the  cost  of  living 
made  in  all  parts  of  the  country  at  the  same  time  have 
shown  that  the  very  least  that  a  family  of  five  persons 
can  live  upon  in  anything  approaching  decency  is  $700. 
It  is  probable  that  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  families 
investigated  by  the  Immigration  Commission  were  to  a 
large  extent  foreign  born,  the  incomes  reported  are  lower 
on  the  average  than  for  the  entire  working  population. 
Nevertheless,  even  when  fair  allowance  is  made  for  that 
fact,  the  figures  show  conclusively  that  between  one-half 
and  two-thirds  of  these  families  were  living  in  a  state 
which  can  be  described  only  as  abject  poverty. 

It  has  been  proved  by  study  here  and  abroad  that  there 
is  a  direct  relation  between  poverty  and  the  death  of 
babies ;  but  the  frightful  rate  at  which  poverty  kills  was 
not  known,  at  least  in  this  country,  until  very  recently, 
when,  through  a  study  made  in  Johnstown,  Pa.,  the 
Federal  Children's  Bureau  showed  that  babies  whose 
fathers  earned  less  than  $10  per  week  died  during  the 
first  year  at  the  appalling  rate  of  256  for  every  thousand. 
On  the  other  hand,  those  whose  fathers  earned  $25  per 
week  or  more  died  at  the  rate  of  only  84  per  thousand. 
The  babies  of  the  poor  died  at  three  times  the  rate  of 
those  who  were  in  fairly  well-to-do  families.  The  tre- 
mendous significance  of  these  figures  will  be  appreciated 
when  it  is  known  that  one-third  of  all  the  adult  workmen 


SOCIALISM   ON  TRIAL  29 

reported  by  the  Immigration  Commission  was  earning 
less  than  $10  per  week,  which  is  exclusive  of  time  lost. 

On  this  showing  of  Johnstown,  these  workmen  may 
expect  one  out  of  four  of  their  babies  to  die  during  the 
first  year  of  life.  The  last  of  the  family  to  go  hungry 
are  the  children,  yet  statistics  show  that  in  six  of  our 
largest  cities  from  12  to  20  per  cent  of  the  children  are 
underfed  and  ill-nourished.  The  most  alarming  con- 
dition is  that  of  the  rapid  growth  of  tenant-farmers  —  in 
1910,  in  each  100  farms  in  the  United  States  37  as  com- 
pared with  28  in  1890,  an  increase  of  32  per  cent  during 
20  years. 

Between  one-fourth  and  one-third  of  the  male  workers, 
18  years  of  age  and  over,  in  factories  and  mines,  earn 
less  than  $10  per  week.  From  two-thirds  to  three-quar- 
ters earn  less  than  $15,  and  only  about  one-tenth  earn 
more  than  $20  a  week.  This  does  not  take  into  con- 
sideration loss  of  working  time  for  any  cause." 

Then  follow  the  final  observations,  which  are  so  very 
eloquent,  so  very  telling,  that  I  should  like  the  Committee 
to  retain  it.  "The  rich,  two  per  cent  of  the  people  in 
the  United  States,  own  60  per  cent  of  the  wealth.  The 
middle  class,  33  per  cent  of  the  people,  own  35  per  cent 
of  the  wealth  —  that  is  approximately  the  average.  The 
poor,  65  per  cent  of  the  people,  own  5  per  cent  of  the 
wealth."  That  is  a  telling  story.  Sixty-five  per  cent 
of  the  people  —  over  75,000,000  people  of  the  United 
States  together  own  one-twentieth  part  of  its  wealth,  and 
if  you  will  exclude  the  highest  strata  of  these  workers, 
if  you  will  reduce  it,  say,  to  50  per  cent,  or  a  little  more, 
that  is  half  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  you  will 
be  justified  fully  in  saying  that  they  own  practically 
nothing  in  this  world;  that  this  country  with  its  wealth, 
to  which  they  have  contributed  by  their  toil,  has  not 
given  them  any  return  of  any  kind,  and  that  they  face 
the  dread  of  starvation  from  day  to  day. 

"This  means,"  says  the  report  in  brief,  "that  two  mil- 
lion people  who  would  make  up  a  city  smaller  than 
Chicago  own  20  per  cent  more  of  the  nation's  wealth  than 
all  the  other  ninety  millions  of  the  country."    Then,  to 


30  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

prove  the  extent  to  which  concentration  has  gone,  the 
report  makes  this  interesting  observation.  "There  is 
at  least  one  individual,  one  out  of  the  110,000,000,  who 
owns  approximately  one  billion  dollars  in  wealth.  The 
average  wealth  of  the  working  people  is  $400  per  head. 
Hence,  this  one  individual  owns  as  much  as  two  million 
and  one-half  workers  in  the  country."  And  bear  in 
mind,  gentlemen,  that  was  the  condition  in  1914,  before 
the  war.  Since  that  time  conditions  have  become  incom- 
parably worse  and  the  contrast  very  much  greater.  In 
that  year  there  were  only  seventy-five  hundred  million- 
aires in  the  United  States.  Today  we  count  about  thirty- 
five  thousand,  more  than  four  times  the  number.  The 
cost  of  living  since  1914  has  more  than  doubled.  Wages 
have  not  kept  pace.  The  picture  so  eloquently  sketched 
by  this  report  of  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission  is 
rosy,  as  compared  with  conditions  as  they  exist  today. 

Now  then,  in  view  of  that,  the  Socialist  Party  says  that 
there  is  nothing  wrong  with  this  country  or  its  people 
except  the  industrial  system.  The  Socialist  proposes  as 
a  remedy  for  this  evil  the  nationalization  of  the  country's 
principal  industries.  They  say  it  is  altogether  wrong; 
it  is  immoral,  if  3'^ou  want,  to  allow  such  a  vital  function 
as  feeding  the  people  and  maintaing  them  in  health,  to 
be  carried  on  by  a  group  of  irresponsible  capitalists  for 
their  private  profit  and  aggrandizement  without  any  con- 
cern for  the  men,  women  and  children  who  have  to  be 
fed  day  after  day,  and  who  often  die  from  mal-nutrition. 
We  say  it  is  an  absolute  wrong  to  allow  the  great  industry 
of  clothing,  of  sheltering  the  people  of  this  country  to  be 
carried  on  by  individual  capitalists  or  profiteers  for  their 
own  private  interests.  We  say  this  country,  as  every 
other  country  has  it  as  its  first  concern  to  see  to  it  that 
the  wealth  which  an  Almighty  nature  or  Providence  has 
placed  within  their  reach,  which  an  industrious  people 
have  increased  a  hundred  fold  by  their  efforts,  and  which 
generations  and  generations  of  thinkers,  inventors  and 
workers  have  brought  to  the  present  degree  of  perfection, 
shall  be  the  common  heritage  of  the  whole  people.  We 
say  it  is  the  duty  of  every  self-respecting,  rational  people 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  •     31 

organized  in  a  proper  way  and  on  a  civilized  basis,  to 
take  tliese  life-sustaining  agencies  out  of  the  hands  of 
private  individuals,  out  of  the  realm  of  speculation,  out 
of  the  chaos  of  competition  that  rules  and  ruins  at  the 
same  time,  and  turn  it  over  to  the  people  to  organize  it 
properly,  to  organize  it  rationally,  scientifically,  to  or- 
ganize it  with  a  view  of  eliminating  waste,  to  organize 
it  with  the  view  of  producing  the  maximum  of  wealth  and 
distributing  it  as  equitably  as  possible  among  all  of 
the  people. 

This  is  the  program  of  the  Socialist  party.  It  is  not 
a  thing  we  have  adopted  just  here  or  within  the  last 
years.  It  is  the  program  upon  which  our  party  has 
been  founded  many,  many  years  ago.  It  is  the  program 
which  has  been  underlying  all  of  our  activities,  ever 
since  the  existence  of  the  Socialist  party.  And  if  you 
want,  you  may  call  that  a  revolutionary  program.  It 
is  revolutionary,  and  in  that  sense,  we  the  adherents 
of  that  program,  we  Socialists,  are  revolutionists.  We 
don't  object  to  the  term.  We  glory  in  it.  So  long  as  the 
end  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  us  is  commendable, 
is  for  the  welfare  of  humanity,  we  don't  care  how  you 
label  it.  But  we  ask  you,  gentlemen,  and  we  ask  those 
who  framed  the  charges  against  us,  since  when  is  it  that 
the  term  "revolution"  or  "revolutionary"  has  become  a 
term  of  opprobrium  in  a  country  which  owes  its  existence 
to  a  successful  revolution?  Since  when  has  the  doctrine 
been  proclaimed  in  this  country  that  a  change,  a  funda- 
mental, radical,  revolutionary  change  in  our  mode  of 
government,  in  our  mode  of  life,  is  not  permissible  so 
long  as  the  people  wish  to  introduce  it?  There  has  been 
a  very  characteristic  incident  in  that  connection.  You 
remember  when  Mr.  Littleton  opened  this  case  in  a  very 
eloquent  address,  he  took  me  to  task  for  having  said  this. 
"What  is  treason  today  may  become  the  law  of  the 
land  tomorrow."  And  he  said  to  you  by  way  of  warning, 
"It  will,  if  you  let  traitors  write  your  laws."  It  seemed 
to  be  an  eloquent  argument  but  what  it  revealed  is  that 
my  good  friend  Mr.  Littleton  and  those  of  the  same  social 
and  economic  school  with  him  have  gone  to  the  point 


32  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

where  they  already  consider  the  fundamental  law  of  this 
land,  the  constitution  of  this  country,  with  its  bill  of 
rights,  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  as  traitor- 
ous. They  are  ashamed  of  it;  they  discard  it.  Aye, 
they  don't  have  the  courage  to  repeat  it  all.  Mr.  Little- 
ton on  that  occasion  read  from  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  he  read  only  a  portion  of  it  which  I  shall 
repeat  to  you.  He  said,  quoting  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, "We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that 
all  men  are  created  equal  and  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights  among  which  are  life, 
liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness;  that  to  secure  these 
rights  governments  are  instituted  amongst  men  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 
And  he  stopped  right  here  and  stopped  dead  because  he 
did  not  dare  to  read  what  follows,  and  what  follows  is: 
"Whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive 
of  these  ends  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to 
abolish  it  and  to  institute  new  government,  laying  its 
foundations  on  such  principles  and  organizing  its  powers 
in  such  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect 
the  safety  and  happiness,"  —  well,  gentlemen,  we  are 
here  to  remind  you  that  this  eloquent  sentence  is  a  legiti- 
mate and  organic  part  of  our  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence just  as  the  part  read  by  Mr.  Littleton  and  we 
say  to  you  that  we  believe,  sincerely  believe,  that  the 
present  form  of  our  industrial  system,  our  industrial 
regime,  has  become  destructive  of  the  very  ends  pro- 
claimed as  inalienable  rights  in  our  Declaration  of 
Independence;  that  life,  liberty  and  the  true  pursuit  of 
true  happiness  have  become  impossible  today  under  the 
prevailing  iniquitous,  economic  system,  and  we  say  that 
we  have  the  right  and  that  we  have  the  duty  to  demand 
that  this  system,  this  pernicious  system,  be  altered;  that 
it  be  abolished,  and  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
form  a  new  industrial  system,  basing  it  upon  such  prin- 
ciples, upon  such  conceptions,  as  they,  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  not  Mr.  Littleton,  not  counsel  for  the 
other  side,  not  even  you  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  or 
members  of  the  Assembly,  deem  proper,  but  the  people 
as  the  people,  the  people  as  a  whole,  deem  proper. 


SOCIALISM   ON  TRIAL  33 

That  is  all  there  is  to  the  first  point  or  charge  against 
us,  that  we  are  a  revolutionary  party. 

The  Chairman.  —  We  want  to  suspend  for  15  minutes. 

Mr.  Hillquit.  —  I  shall  be  very  thankful. 

(Whereupon,  at  3:15  p.m.,  a  recess  was  taken  for  15 
minutes.) 

AFTER   RECESS. 

Violence 

The  Chairman:  Proceed. 

Mr.  Hillquit:  The  first  charge,  Mr.  Chairman,  to 
which  I  addressed  myself  before  adjournment — the 
charge  that  the  Socialist  party  is  a  revolutionary  organ- 
ization —  acquires  real  significance  and  legal  importance 
only  in  connection  with  the  second  charge,  namely,  that 
the  Socialist  party  seeks  to  attain  its  ends  by  means  of 
violence;  and  I  take  it  that  this  Conmiittee  will  proceed 
upon  the  theory  that  if  we  advocate  a  change,  no  matter 
how  radical ;  so  long  as  we  advocate  it  by  peaceful,  con- 
stitutional and  lawful  means,  we  are  within  our  rights. 
If  we  advocate  it  by  means  of  violence,  by  illegal  and 
unlawful  means,  then,  of  course,  we  become  lawbreakers. 
The  charge  that  the  Socialist  party  advocates  a  violent 
change  is  contained  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Assembly 
and  in  the  supplementary  charges  in  the  following  form: 

First,  that  the  Moscow  Internationale  is  pledged  to 
the  forcible  and  violent  overthrow  of  all  organized  gov- 
ernments existing. 

Second,  that  the  Socialist  party  has  endorsed  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Moscow  Internationale,  therefore,  by  in- 
ference also  the  policy  of  overthrowing  all  forms  of 
government  by  violence,  and  by  a  second  inference, 
also  overthrowing  the  government  of  the  United  States 
by  violence. 

In  the  Chairman's  statement  this  is  somewhat  ampli- 
fied by  the  charge  that  the  Socialist  party  strives  to 
foment  unrest  and  *'to  bring  into  play  force,  violence  and 
direct  action  of  the  masses."    In  the  course  of  the  testi- 


34  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

mony  the  general  strike  has  been  added  as  one  of  such 
charges.  Then,  also  one  portion,  or  paragraph,  of  the 
St.  Louis  Resolution  was  introduced  into  the  evidence  in 
support  of  this  charge.  The  portion  reading,  "The  only- 
struggle  which  would  justify  taking  up  arms  is  the  class 
struggle  against  economic  exploitation  and  political  op- 
pression." 

Now,  the  testimony  on  both  sides  has  been  pretty  clear 
on  the  subject.  The  prosecution  has  sought  to  establish 
this  point  principally  by  inferences.  I  think  I  shall 
not  be  contradicted  if  I  say  that  they  have  not  read  a 
single  official  party  declaration  or  any  other  authoritative 
Socialist  statement  advocating  violence  as  a  means  of 
attaining  the  Socialist  ends.  It  has  been  rather  a  matter 
of  innuendo  and  inference  from  certain  scattered  utter- 
ances here  and  there  as  against  all  the  testimony  of  all 
Socialist  witnesses,  which  has  been  perfectly  definite  and 
consistent.  I  shall  say  to  you  now,  gentlemen,  that  there 
was  not  on  this  point,  nor  on  any  other  point,  a  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  Socialist  spokesmen  to  cover  up  or 
conceal  anything  in  their  program.  They  have  been 
perfectly  frank.  To  conceal  or  to  cover  up  any  part 
of  the  Socialist  program  would  go  directly  against  the 
Socialist  interests  and  the  entire  existence  and  aims  of 
the  Socialist  movement. 

Our  is  a  movement  of  propaganda.  We  are  a  minority 
party.  Our  object  is  to  convert  the  majority  of  the 
people  to  our  views.  Consequently,  we  must  advocate 
our  views  publicly.  To  hold  certain  views  and  conceal 
them  would  be  diametrically  opposed  to  the  purposes  of 
the  Socialist  party.  If  we  had  assumed  that  anything 
in  our  program  is  such  that  we  cannot  stand  for  it 
publicly,  what  object  would  there  be  having  it  in  our 
program  as  a  part  of  our  propaganda?  I  don't  know 
whether  I  make  myself  clear.  As  a  political  party,  we 
are  not  paid  or  hired  to  stand  for  certain  things.  We 
stand  for  the  things  which  we  believe  to  be  true,  and 
for  the  things  that  we  stand  we  always  make  public 
propaganda.  In  other  words,  we  are  never  in  a  posi- 
tion to  deny  any  part  of  our  program. 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  35 

On  the  question  of  violence  in  connection  with  the 
Socialist  propaganda,  we  have  made  it  perfectly  clear 
that  we  wish  to  introduce  a  radical,  economic  and  indus- 
trial change.  A  change  of  this  kind  cannot  be  intro- 
duced by  methods  of  conspiracy.  It  cannot  be  introduced 
by  acts  of  daring  or  violence  of  a  minority.  Because  it 
means  a  process  of  social  or  economic  evolution.  If 
it  were  a  question  of  an  old  time  revolution,  hav- 
ing for  its  aim  the  deposing  of  one  sovereign  and 
electing,  or  proclaiming  another  sovereign;  or  even  for 
that  matter,  deposing  a  dynasty  and  proclaiming  a 
republic,  perhaps  a  few  conspirators  could  undertake  the 
task  and  get  away  with  it ;  but  to  transform  the  economic 
basis  of  society;  to  socialize  all  the  principal  industries 
of  the  country  and  to  organize  the  whole  working  com- 
munity as  a  public  instrumentality  for  the  operation  and 
management  of  such  industries,  how  can  that  conceivably 
be  accomplished  by  conspiracy  or  by  violence? 

We  Socialists,  as  strong  believers  in  social  evolution 
have  always  been  the  first  to  decry  and  ridicule  the 
romantic  notions  of  changing  the  fundamental  forms  of 
society,  the  economic  basis  of  society,  by  acts  of  violence 
or  by  conspiracy;  and  as  has  been  brought  out  in  this 
testimonj'-,  in  the  very  early  days  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment —  in  the  days  of  the  First  Internationale  this  was 
the  bone  of  contention  between  the  Marxian  Socialists 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Bakunin  anarchists  on  the  other. 
Our  position  is  a  simple  one.  We  say  we  are  striving 
for  the  industrial  transformation  of  society  and  the  polit- 
ical changes  which,  of  necessity,  must  accompany  them. 

When  we  say  "we,"  we  mean  the  Socialists  of  all  the 
world.  Now,  of  course,  there  are  cases  where  there  is 
no  way  except  the  way  of  violence  for  political  changes. 
For  instance,  absolute  monarchies  with  no  parliamentary 
systems  of  representation,  no  ballot  boxes  to  introduce 
innovations  in  governmental  systems.  Say,  Russia, 
under  the  Czar,  even  before  the  days  of  the  Duma. 
What  kind  of  change  could  the  people  of  Russia  ac- 
complish politically,  economically,  or  otherwise,  except 
by  overthrowing  the  Czar?     They  could  not  vote  the 


36  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

Czar  out  of  office  because  they  couldn't  vote.  They 
could  only  throw  him  out  physically.  In  an  instance 
of  this  kind,  of  course,  whether  we  say  it,  or  don't 
say  it,  everybody  of  any  political  sense  knows  that 
where  there  is  no  medium  of  popular  expression;  where 
there  is  nothing  but  a  system  of  repression,  violence 
alone  will  change  that  system.  Let  me  give  you  another 
example.  There  was  our  own  Revolution.  What  was 
the  situation?  The  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
Colonics  wanted  certain  changes,  at  first  not  even  inde- 
pendence; later  independence  from  England.  Could 
they  accomplish  it  peacefully?  No.  Why  not?  Be- 
cause they  had  no  voice  in  the  matter.  They  could  not 
determine  their  own  destiny.  They  were  subject  colo- 
nies. Their  policies  and  their  life  were  directed  from 
England.  Consequently  they  could  only  emancipate 
themselves  by  a  physical  act,  by  simply  saying  "We  shall 
no  longer  be  your  subjects,"  and  taking  the  consequence 
of  a  war.  The  Revolution  was  not  accomplished  by 
parliamentary  methods  because  such  methods  did  not 
exist.  But  where  there  is  a  machinery  for  righting  of 
grievances,  for  changing  of  governmental  forms,  we 
Socialists  say  that  that  is  the  method  which  we  adopt. 
That  is  part  of  our  program.  At  the  same  time  we  can- 
not blind  ourselves  to  history.  We  cannot  ignore 
the  fact  that  in  actual  practice  revolutions,  changes, 
fundamental,  governmental  and  economic  changes,  have 
often  been  accompanied  by  violence.  We  say  that  in 
most  cases  the  violence  has  come  not  from  the  victorious 
majority  but  from  the  defeated  minority.  In  most  cases 
it  has  been  forced  upon  the  majority.  And  we  have 
cited  a  number  of  such  cases  to  you.  Now,  we  say  the 
Socialist  Party  is  not  a  party  of  non-resistance  and  we 
say  further,  the  hypothesis  having  been  placed  before 
us,  that  if  a  majority  of  the  people  of  this  country  were 
to  vote  for  a  Socialist  change  in  the  form  of  government 
and  the  capitalist  minority  were  to  attempt  force  to 
prevent  them  from  coming  into  their  lawful  inheritance, 
we  would  repel  or  advise  repelling  such  force  by  force. 
Did  you  expect  a  different  answer?    Would  any  Amer- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  37 

ican  make  a  different  answer?  No.  And  that  is  all 
there  is  to  the  theory  of  violence  in  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  disjointed  fragmentary  state- 
ments that  sometimes  have  been  made  in  the  course  of 
an  impromptu  speech,  or  perhaps  in  an  ill-considered 
article,  I  say  there  is  absolutely  nothing  as  definite,  as 
concrete,  as  conclusive  as  this  position  of  the  Social- 
ist Party.  In  order  to  clinch  this  argument,  gentlemen, 
I  want  to  read  to  you  a  few  very  brief  passages  from 
a  little  booklet  of  mine  which  is  in  evidence  here,  "So- 
cialism Summed  Up,"  not  because  I  want  to  quote 
myself  as  an  authority,  but  because,  and  I  want  you  to 
bear  this  in  mind,  gentlemen,  this  book  was  written  before 
these  Assemblymen  were  suspended,  before  we  had  any 
idea  of  ever  being  called  before  any  bar  to  defend  the 
political  tenets  of  the  Socialist  Party.  It  was  written 
both  for  the  purpose  of  making  converts  and,  of  course, 
you  do  not  make  any  converts  unless  you  place  your 
actual  position  before  them;  and  also  for  the  purpose 
of  enlightenment  of  our  young  party  members. 

It  has  been  officially  published  by  the  national  office 
of  the  Socialist  party.  It  has  been  circulated  in  many, 
many  thousands  all  over  the  country.  This,  having  been 
WTitten  at  a  time  when  it  could  not  have  had  for  its 
object  controversial  points  surely  states  the  true  position 
of  the  Socialist  party  on  that  subject.  It  is  as  follows: 
"The  introduction  of  the  Socialist  regime  depends  on 
two  main  conditions.  First,  the  economic  situation  of 
the  country  must  be  ripe  for  the  change."  Bear  that  in 
mind,  gentlemen.  We  do  not  claim  that  we  can  go  to 
Zululand  to-day  and  organize  a  Socialist  party,  or  a 
Socialist  movement,  because  economic  conditions  are 
not  ripe  for  it.  We  do  not  maintain  that  we  can  intro- 
duce a  Socialist  regime  before  the  economic  conditions 
of  a  country  are  ripe  for  it,  and  we  must  wait  for  such 
point  to  be  reached. 

"Second,  the  people  of  the  country  must  be  ready  for 
it."  The  people  of  the  country,  not  a  small  minority 
party,  not  a  group,  but  the  people  of  the  country. 


38  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

The  first  condition  takes  care  of  itself.  The  task  of 
the  Socialist  movement  is  to  bring  about  the  second 
condition,  and  it  is  this  aim  which  determines  the 
methods  and  practical  program  of  the  movement. 

Whether  the  Socialist  order  is  to  be  ushered  in  by 
revolutionary  decree  or  by  a  series  of  legislative  enact- 
ments or  executive  proclamation,  bearing  in  mind,  of 
course,  the  conditions  in  the  different  countries,  "it  can 
be  established  and  maintained  only  by  the  people  in 
control  of  the  country." 

'Tn  other  words,  Socialism,  like  any  other  national 
political  program,  can  be  realized  only  when  its  ad- 
herents, sympathizers  and  supporters  are  numerous 
enough  to  wrest  the  machinery  of  government  from  their 
opponents,  and  to  use  it  for  the  realization  of  their 
program." 

Does  that  sound  like  a  conspiracy  to  overpower  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  overthrow  it  by 
force  and  violence?  But  to  make  it  still  clearer: 
"Modern  Socialists  do  not  expect  the  socialist  order  to 
be  introduced  by  one  great  cataclysm,  nor  do  they 
expect  it  to  be  established  by  a  rabble  made  desperate  by 
starvation.  The  Socialists  expect  that  the  cooperative 
commonwealth  will  be  built  by  a  disciplined  working 
class,  thoroughly  organized,  well-trained  and  fully  quali- 
fied to  assume  the  reins  of  government  and  the  manage- 
ment of  the  industries.  Next  to  the  education  of  the 
workers  in  the  philosophy  of  Socialism,  the  prime  task 
of  the  Socialist  movement  is  therefore  the  political  and 
economic  organization.  The  Socialist  movement  of  each 
country  presents  itself  primarily  as  a  political  party." 

And  again:  "The  objective  point  of  the  Socialist 
attack  is  the  capitalist  system,  not  the  individual  capital- 
ist. The  struggles  of  the  movement  represent  the  organ- 
ized efforts  of  the  entire  working  class,  not  the  daring 
of  individual  leaders  or  heroes.  The  intellectual  life  of 
the  working  class  is  determined  by  the  training  of  the 
men  and  women  constituting  that  class,  and  not  by  the 
more  advanced  conditions  of  a  small  group  of  it.  A 
country   may   be   educated,   led   and   transformed   into 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  39 

socialism ;  but  it  cannot  be  driven,  lured  or  bulldozed  into 
it.  The  Socialist's  conception  of  the  world  process  is 
evolutionary,  not  cataclysmic.  Socialism  has  come  to 
build,  not  to  destroy.  This  is  the  accepted  position  of 
the  modern  Socialist  movement." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  say  that  if,  in  print  and 
publicly,  I  referred  to  this  position  as  the  accepted  posi- 
tion of  the  modern  Socialist  movement,  it  certainly  was 
the  accepted  position  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement, 
for  I  could  not  afford  in  the  face  of  the  opposite,  to 
write  that  sentence. 

Then:  "The  accepted  position  of  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  is,  however,  not  to  be  taken  as  an  assurance, 
or  prediction,  that  a  Socialist  victory  will  in  all  cases"  — 
that  means  in  all  countries  —  "come  about  by  orderly 
and  peaceful  methods,  and  will  not  be  accompanied  by 
violence.  It  may  well  happen  that  the  classes  in  power 
here  or  there"  —  that  means  in  one  country  or  another  — 
"will  refuse  to  yield  the  control  of  the  government  to 
the  working  class  even  after  a  legitimate  political  vic- 
tory. In  that  case  a  violent  conflict  will  necessarily 
result,  as  it  did  under  somewhat  similar  circumstances 
in  1861 ;  but  such  spectacular  and  sanguinary  outbreaks 
which  sometimes  accompany  radical  economic  and  polit- 
ical changes  are  purely  incidental.  They  do  not  make 
the  Social  transformation.  Thus  in  England  the  revo- 
lution which  transferred  the  actual  control  of  the  country 
from  the  nobility  to  the  capitalists  was  accomplished 
by  gradual  and  peaceful  stages,  without  violence  or 
blood-shed.  In  France  the  same  process  culminated  in 
the  ferocious  fights  of  the  great  revolution  of  1789;  but 
who  will  say  that  the  transition  in  England  was  less 
thorough  and  radical  than  in  France?  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  street  fights  do  not  make  a  social  revolution  any 
more  than  fire-crackers  make  the  Fourth  of  July." 

Now  then,  gentlemen,  I  think  our  position  on  the  sub- 
ject could  not  be  made  clearer  than  it  has  been  made. 

Another  point  was  tacked  onto  this  proposition, 
namely,  that  we  advocate  mass  action  and  the  general 
strike,  and  I  shall  say  a  very  few  words  on  that  sub- 


40  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

ject.  The  phrase  "mass  action"  occurs  quite  frequently 
in  our  phraseology.  What  we  mean  by  it,  gentlemen,  is 
the  opposite  of  what  you  impute  to  us.  We  distinguish 
between  mass  action  and  individual  action.  Mass  ac- 
tion is  organized  action  of  the  people.  Political  action 
is  mass  action.  Organized  strikes  are  mass  action. 
Individual  attempts,  individual  assassinations,  individual 
acts  of  sabotage  are  not  mass  action,  and  we  deprecate 
them.  The  mass  action  we  have  in  view  is  the  legal 
organized  action  of  large  masses  of  the  community. 

And  as  to  general  strikes  let  me  state  our  position:  As  a 
matter  of  history,  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United 
States,  together  with  the  greater  number  of  Socialist 
organizations  in  the  world,  has  always  consistently  re- 
jected the  idea  of  a  general  strike  for  political  purposes; 
and  our  argument  has  been  that  if  we  have  a  number 
of  workers  in  a  parliamentary  country,  determined  to 
the  point  of  striking  for  a  political  reform,  it  is  strong 
enough  and  numerous  enough  to  cast  its  votes  for  such 
reform  and  the  strike  becomes  unnecessary.  If  the 
working  class  is  ready  to  go  to  the  limit  in  such  demand, 
it  is  ripe  for  them,  and  if  it  is  ripe,  we  do  not  need  the 
general  strike.  If  it  is  not  ripe,  there  will  be  no  effective 
general  strike. 

The  first  and  only  endorsement  of  the  general  strike 
method  by  the  Socialist  party  in  the  United  States  is 
contained  in  the  proclamation  in  connection  with  the 
U-boat  warfare,  which  has  been  read  here  several  times. 
At  that  time  under  special  pressure  the  Socialist  party 
declared  its  opposition  to  the  war  not  yet  declared  to 
be  so  strong  as  to  sanction  even  a  general  strike  for  its 
prevention.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  maintain  that  a  reso- 
lution of  this  kind,  whatever  view  you  may  have  of  its 
political  wisdom,  was  perfectly  legal,  that  we  had  a  right 
to  adopt  such  a  resolution  —  and  I  shall  say  more  regard- 
less of  the  attitude  of  the  Socialist  party  on  general 
strikes  for  political  purposes  — I  will  say  that  the 
workers  of  this  country  have  such  right,  and  that  it  is 
well  that  they  should  at  least  hold  it  in  reserve  as  a 
possible  instrument  in  some  cases,  in  exceptional  emer- 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  41 

gencies.  When  Mr.  Lee  was  here  on  the  witness  stand 
he  was  questioned  very  closely,  very  adroitly  by  Mr. 
Conboy  —  "Under  what  circumstances  would  you  admit 
the  necessity  or  propriety  of  a  general  strike?"  Mr.  Lee 
gave  some  instances.  I  will  say  that  the  general  strike 
is  very  often  used,  has  been  used  abroad  for  the  purposes 
of  enforcing  parliamentry  action  or  political  action,  and 
I  can  well  imagine  such  concrete  instances  now.  Let 
me  give  you  this  hypothetical  instance.  A  labor  party  is 
now  being  formed  at  least  in  some  parts  of  the  country. 
Suppose  the  workingmen  of  an}^  state  get  together  and 
say,  "We  want  to  form  a  party  of  our  own;  we  are  not 
satisfied  with  the  way  the  representatives  of  the  old 
parties  are  legislating  on  labor  matters.  We  want  our 
own  representatives  to  come  into  legislative  bodies  and 
to  voice  our  demands,  our  aspirations,  our  interests.  We 
want  them  to  speak  for  us  by  our  mandate,"  and  suppose 
an  election  is  held  and  being  confronted  with  all  sorts 
of  election  frauds,  they  still  manage  to  elect  a  few 
representatives,  and  those  representatives  come  to  the 
legislative  body  and  their  working  constituency  is  wait- 
ing and  watching,  hoping  that  at  last  their  own  direct 
representatives  will  speak  for  them  in  the  halls  of  the 
Legislature,  and  suppose  a  big  capitalist  in  the  same 
Legislature  thereupon  gets  up  and  tells  them,  "Look 
here,  gentlemen,  I  don't  approve  of  your  program,  of 
your  principles,  of  your  platform.  Get  out  of  my  Legis- 
lature." I  say  this  would  be  eminently  a  case  where  the 
workers  would  be  justified  in  declaring  a  general  strike 
until  such  time  as  their  constitutional  rights  are  accorded 
to  them. 

I  should  not  be  surprised  if  there  ever  does  arise  a 
condition  of  this  kind  on  a  large  scale  that  that  will  be 
what  will  happen.  We  do  not  apologize  for  that  view. 
We  have  a  right  to  safeguard  the  political  rights  of  our 
constituents,  and  of  the  people,  by  every  legal  means 
without  exception,  and  the  general  strike  for  such  pur- 
pose is  one  of  such  legal  methods.  It  has  been  recog- 
nized in  every  civilized  modern  country. 


42  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

I  hope  personally  that  the  occasion  may  never  arise 
where  it  shall  be  necessary  to  be  resorted  to  in  this 
country,  but  if  it  should,  the  workers  have  a  full  and 
perfect  right  to  use  it  for  the  protection  of  their 
interest. 


Politics 

The  next  point  made  against  us  is  somev/hat  analogous 
to  this.  It  is  the  point,  that  the  Socialist  party  is  a 
political  party  only  in  appearance,  but  that  as  a  matter 
of  fact  it  does  not  believe  in  politics ;  that  its  politics  are 
only  a  blind  and  camouflage.  This  charge  is  contained 
in  the  Chairman's  statement,  that  the  nomination  and 
election  serve  only  to  disguise  and  cover  up  our  true 
intent  and  purpose  to  overthrow  the  government  peace- 
ably or  forcibly;  also  in  the  very  eloquent  statement  of 
Mr.  Littleton  that  we  are  "masquerading  as  a  political 
party":  and  finally,  in  a  few  statements  quoted  from  our 
platforms  and  declarations,  such,  for  instance,  as  that 
the  reform  measures  advocated  by  us  are  merely  pre- 
liminary to  the  realizatioin  of  our  whole  program,  or  that 
our  politics  is  only  a  means  to  the  end. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  requires  a  great  legal  acumen  to 
construe  upon  the  basis  of  these  statements  a  theory  that 
we  really  are  not  a  political  party.  Is  there  a  political 
party,  anywhere  in  the  world,  a  true  political  party  in  its 
prime  and  vigor  that  does  not  consider  politics  as  a  mere 
means  to  the  end?  Every  political  party  is  supposed  to 
have  a  platform.  Its  end  is  the  realization  of  such 
platform.  The  means  are  politics,  office,  control  of  gov- 
ernment. It  is  only  when  a  political  party  degenerates 
into  an  office  and  patronage-holding  concern  that  politics 
becomes  an  end  in  itself.  When  the  Republican  party 
was  organized  first  it  had  a  great  mission  to  perform,  no 
doubt,  and  politics  was  the  means  to  the  performance 
of  that  mission,  to  the  attainment  of  that  end;  and  we 
Socialists  tell  you,  Of  course,  we  are  not  in  politics  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  Claessens,  Waldman,   Solomon, 


SOCIALISM    ON    TRIAL  43 

deWitt  and  Orr  offices  at  the  remunerative  salaries  of 
$1500  a  year.  We  are  not  in  politics  for  spoils  —  de- 
cidedly not.  To  us  politics  is  only  the  means  to  the 
end;  and  the  end  is  the  introduction  of  the  Socialist 
system  of  society  which  I  have  outlined  before. 

I  should  go  a  little  further,  gentlemen,  I  should  say 
this:  that  the  charge  is  frivolous.  The  mere  fact  that 
these  five  men,  members  of  the  Socialist  Party,  elected 
on  the  Socialist  ticket,  come  here  seeking  office,  is  abso- 
lute and  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 
Socialist  Party  is  a  political  party.  Groups  and  move- 
ments that  do  not  believe  in  politics  as  an  instrument  of 
social  improvement,  do  not  engage  in  politics.  You 
never  find  an  anarchist  group  nominating  for  public 
office  or  voting  for  public  office,  or  sending  representa- 
tives to  legislatures  or  other  political  bodies.  The  Social- 
ist Party,  which  adopts  a  political  platform,  nominates 
candidates,  votes  for  them,  sends  them  here,  certainly 
is  a  political  party. 

I  was  a  little  amused  when  we  had  Mr.  Waldman  on 
the  stand  here  and  he  described  the  methods  of  the 
Socialist  delegation  in  this  Assembly:  how  they  came 
together  and  first  took  up  their  political  platform  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  pledges  or  promises  upon  which 
they  had  been  elected,  and  then  said,  "It  now  becomes 
our  duty  in  pursuit  of  our  pre-election  promises  to  the 
electorate  to  attempt  to  enact  legislation  along  these 
lines,"  and  then  assigned  different  tasks  to  each  one,  and 
each  of  them  spent  days,  and  sometimes  weeks,  in  study- 
ing the  subjects;  then  introduced  bills  and  followed  them 
up  and  tried  to  get  them  out  of  the  committee,  and  on 
the  floor  of  this  House.  I  was  asking  myself  in  the  face 
of  these  uncontroverted  facts,  is  it  really  the  charge 
that  they  are  not  enough  in  politics  that  worries  our 
opponents,  or  is  it  perhaps  the  opposite?  Are  they 
perhaps  too  much  in  earnest  about  their  politics  for 
the  health  and  comfort  of  their  opponents?  ^ 

I  can  not  take  seriously  the  charge  that  their  politics  is 
a  sort  of  camouflage.  If  an  Assemblyman  of  the  Social- 
ist Party  came  here  not  to  introduce  a  bill  but  a  bomb ; 


44  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIM. 

if  an  Assemblyman  of  the  Socialist  Party  came  here  not 
to  debate,  but  to  shoot;*  if  he  came  here  to  commit  acts 
of  violence  instead  of  legislating;  if  there  had  been  any 
such  record  on  their  part  I  could  conceive  of  the  justice 
of  such  a  charge ;  but  the  very  record  of  these  men  proves 
that  they  and  their  party  take  their  tasks  seriously,  and 
again,  I  shall  read  you,  very  briefly,  a  quotation  from 
the  same  booklet  to  define  our  position  on  politics.  It  is 
this: 

"In  the  Socialist  conception,  politics  is  only  a  means  to 
the  end.  Temporary  and  local  political  power  is  valu- 
able mainly  as  affording  an  opportunity  for  economic 
reform  and  the  final  national  political  victory  of  the 
workers  will  be  of  vital  importance  only  as  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  the  introduction  of  a  system  of  collective 
and  cooperative  industries.  A  general  political  victory 
of  the  workers  would  be  barren  of  results  if  the  workers 
were  not  at  the  same  time  prepared  to  take  over  the 
management  of  the  industries.  The  Socialists,  therefore, 
seek  to  train  the  workers  in  economic  no  less  than  in 
political  self-government.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the 
movement  everywhere  seeks  alliance  with  economic  or- 
ganization of  labor,  the  trade  unions  and  the  cooperative 
societies." 

In  all  kindness  towards  our  opposing  political  parties, 
the  Republican  and  Democratic,  I  want  to  say  that  in 
the  Socialist  program  and  in  the  Socialist  activities, 
politics  holds  a  much  higher  and  nobler  place  than  in 
the  conceptions  and  tactics  of  the  old  parties.  Just 
because  we  consider  politics  as  a  means  to  an  end,  just 
because  we  consider  politics  as  an  instrument  of  social 
betterment,  just  because  we  consider  politics  an  educa- 
tional function  and  not  merely  an  office  hunting  or  spoil 
dividing  process,  not  merely  a  pedestal  for  personal  ele- 
vation, I  say,  we,  the  Socialists,  are  genuinely  and  prop- 
erly a  political  party  and  more  so  than  the  other  parties. 

And  then  again  in  order  to  vary  the  subject  somewhat, 

♦  An  allusion  to  a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  who 
declared  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  that  the  Socialist  Assem- 
blymen, if  guilty,  should  be  shot. 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  45 

comes  the  next  cliarge,  namely,  that  the  Socialist  party 
is  too  much  of  a  political  party.  You  say  in  the  former 
charge  our  politics  is  a  camouflage,  that  we  are  not 
a  political  party  at  all,  and  in  the  next  charge  you  say 
that  the  Socialist  party  is  too  much  of  a  political  party, 
that  it  dictates  the  policies  and  actions  of  its  members 
elected  to  public  office.  The  consistency  of  the  two 
charges  is  not  very  obvious  to  me,  but  they  both  are  here 
and  we  shall  discuss  the  second  now  —  that  the  Socialist 
party  unduly  controls  public  officials  elected  on  its  ticket. 
That  is  based  upon  several  pieces  of  evidence  before  you. 
One  is  the  pledge  which  every  Socialist  in  becoming  a 
member  of  the  party,  takes,  namely,  to  be  guided  by 
the  Constitution  and  platform  of  that  party  in  all  his 
political  actions.  The  second  is  contained  in  the  State 
Constitution  of  the  Socialist  Party,  and  is  to  the  effect 
that  a  member  of  the  party  may  be  expelled  or  sus- 
pended if  he  does  not  comply  with  the  directions  given 
to  him  by  the  dues-paying  membership  of  the  party. 
The  third  is  the  provision  in  the  same  State  constitution 
that  every  candidate  of  the  Socialist  party  for  public 
office  should  sign  an  advance  resignation. 

I  must  confess  I  cannot  clearly  see  the  force  of  these 
objections  or  the  contentions  based  upon  them.  The 
promise  to  be  governed  in  political  policies  by  direction 
of  a  political  party  is  not  an  improper  promise,  not  pro- 
hibited by  law,  statute  or  constitution  anywhere. 

There  is  a  very  distinct  prohibition  against  making 
promises  of  any  things  of  value  in  consideration  of  secur- 
ing the  vote  of  the  voters.  That  is  all.  There  is  no 
other  prohibition.  And  it  seems  to  me  we  have  drifted 
into  a  very  peculiar  line  of  reasoning  in  this  connection. 
In  the  first  place,  as  it  appears  from  the  record,  the 
Socialist  party  representatives  are  probably  the  most 
unhampered  representatives  of  any  party.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is,  first,  that  advance  resignations  are 
not  as  a  rule  required  of  candidates  of  the  Socialist 
party.  Only  two  instances  have  been  mentioned,  one, 
that  of  Mayor  Lunn,  who  admitted  that  it  applied  only 
to  his  first  term  and  not  to  his  second  terai,  or  the 


46  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

third  time  when  he  ran,  I  believe,  on  the  Socialist  ticket; 
and  then  Mr.  Collins  referred  to  some  occasion  in  some 
town  in  Ohio,  of  which  nobody  knows  and  which  could 
not  be  verified.  But  the  uniform  testimony  of  our 
National  Secretary,  our  Secretary  in  New  York,  the 
elected  officials  themselves,  all  given  solemnly  under 
oath,  is  that  in  no  instance  within  years  and  years  has 
the  practice  been  followed. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  have  introduced  that  evidence  be- 
cause W'O  wanted  the  fact  established;  but  it  is  not  im- 
portant. Suppose  such  resignations  had  been  signed  by 
candidates  for  office  on  the  Socialist  Party  ticket.  As 
it  happened,  they  would  have  had  no  value  because,  of 
course,  everyone  can  withdraw  his  own  resignation  be- 
fore it  has  been  acted  upon.  You  all  know  that.  But 
even  if  it  had  a  binding  force,  it  would  have  meant  only 
one  thing,  and  that  is  that  a  candidate  elected  on  a 
Socialist  party  ticket  agrees  to  carry  out  the  platform 
and  pledged  promises  of  the  Socialist  Party  or  quit  the 
Socialist  Party,  be  fired  out  of  it,  if  he  does  not  comply 
with  it. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen,  to  one  phase  of  it:  all  through  the  pro- 
ceedings there  have  been  eloquent  speeches  about  the 
"oath"  that  the  Socialist  party  members  take  to  their 
organization  and  to  their  Internationale  as  against  the 
constitutional  oath.  There  is  not  any  oath  being  taken, 
nor  has  there  ever  been  any  oath  taken  by  any  member 
of  the  Socialist  party  in  any  way.  They  merely  sub- 
scribe, in  their  application,  to  the  ordinary,  natural  — 
even  implied  —  obligation  to  live  up  to  the  Constitution 
and  principles  of  the  party  while  they  are  members  of 
the  party.  If  they  do  not,  they  are  thrown  out.  Wliat 
concern  is  that  of  yours?  Every  party,  every  organiza- 
tion, has  a  right  to  say  they  will  tolerate  a  member  as 
long  as  he  complies  with  their  constitution,  and  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  you,  whether  they  are  fired  out  of 
the  party  or  not.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
this  voluntary  obligation  cannot  be  weighed  against  the 
only  oath  the  defendents  have  taken,  the  constitutional 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  47 

oath  of  office,  when  they  came  to  the  door  of  this 
Assembly. 

There  has  been  very  little  direction  by  the  Socialist 
party,  it  appears,  during  the  entire  period  of  existence  of 
Socialist  members  in  the  Assembly.  There  was  only  one 
occasion,  the  question  of  voting  upon  the  constitutional 
amendment  on  prohibition.  It  appears  there  was  a 
conference  held  between  the  Assemblymen  and  party 
representatives,  and  an  agreement  was  reached  that  they 
should  advocate  submitting  the  question  to  referendum. 
The  Assemblymen  themselves  determined  on  that  course 
before  the  decision  was  reached  and  that  is  the  only 
instance  of  interfering  with  their  activities.  Mr.  Lunn, 
who  was  not  a  friendly  witness,  testified  to  the  fact  that 
never  in  his  experience,  and  even  in  his  quarrels,  has  the 
Socialist  party  attempted  to  interfere  with  his  adminis- 
trative acts  for  corrupt  or  improper  motives,  or  motives 
of  material  gain.  In  all  cases  it  was  a  question  of  main- 
taining party  principles;  of  living  up  to  party  promises 
and  party  pledges,  which  the  Socialist  party  has  a  right 
to  do. 

You  know,  gentlemen,  there  is  a  story  about  the 
Roman  augurs.  The  Roman  augurs  used  to  tell  fortunes 
from  the  entrails  of  animals,  and  the  people  believed 
in  them;  but  there  was  the  historic  and  proverbial  wink 
which  they  used  to  give  each  other  when  meeting.  They 
knew  each  other.  And  when  you  gentlemen  of  the  Re- 
publican and  Democratic  parties  charge  us  —  the  Social- 
ists—  with  permitting  too  much  party  interference  in 
the  performance  of  our  public  duty,  we  feel  like  wink- 
ing at  you  off  the  record,  because  where  do  we  come  in 
with  you  on  party  interference?  Everything  charged 
against  us  applies  truly  to  the  Republican  and  Demo- 
cratic parties. 

Do  you  remember  we  had  recently  informal  conven- 
tions of  both  parties,  and  each  of  them  recommended 
certain  persons  for  office  delegates  to  the  national  con- 
vention. It  was  a  recommendation.  That  was  all.  But 
you  can  imagine  that  it  will  go  with  the  party  and  with 
the  voters  just  the  same. 


48  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

I  have  heard  before  of  such  expressions  as  "the  party 
leader,"  or,  vulgarly,  "the  party  boss,"  who  represents  the 
party  and  stands  between  the  party  and  the  elected  pub- 
lic officials.  Perhaps  such  a  thing  does  not  exist.  Per- 
haps it  is  only  a  myth;  but  when  you  terni  of  office 
expires,  gentlemen,  and  you  want  a  renomination,  try  to 
find  out  whether  you  will  go  to  the  electorate  as  a  whole 
to  get  that  renomination  or  perhaps  pay,  first,  a  little 
friendly  call  on  the  political  party  leader,  or  party  boss. 

In  this  very  House,  as  in  every  other  House,  you 
recognize  the  existence  of  political  parties  and  their 
right  to  control  the  actions  of  their  representatives. 
What  is  your  majority  leader?  —  what  is  your  minority 
leader?  —  other  than  instruments  of  the  respective 
parties  to  influence  and  control  the  conduct  of  their 
representatives,  and  inasmuch  as  such  control  is  not  for 
corrupt  purposes,  but  for  proper  political  purposes,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  party  unity  in  action,  it  is  per- 
fectly legitimate  and  we  recognize  it. 

What  are  your  caucuses,  caucuses  of  the  Republican 
Party,  caucuses  of  the  Democratic  Party,  announced 
from  the  floor  here?  What  else  but  another  instru- 
mentality for  bringing  about  uniformity  of  action  among 
the  members  of  the  respective  parties  on  the  floor  of  this 
House  or  any  other  legislative  body.  Why,  gentlemen, 
this  proceeding  itself  —  this  proceeding  in  which  we 
are  charged  with  unduly  controlling  our  representatives 
in  the  Assembly  —  is  an  eloquent  testimonial  of  the 
control  by  the  old  parties  of  their  members. 

Here,  we  read  in  the  record,  the  Assembly  came  to- 
gether the  first  time.  A  resolution  of  unusual  importance 
is  suddenly  sprung  upon  the  members.  They  are  not  pre- 
pared for  it.  We  have  heard  the  public  testimony  of  As- 
semblyman after  Assemblyman,  that  they  knew  nothing 
about  it,  that  they  were  absolutely  unprepared  for  it, 
that  they  could  not  in  conscience  vote  for  it.  But  the 
resolution  is  introduced  by  the  majority  leader._  Every 
Republican  votes  for  it.  The  minority  leader  is  called 
upon  to  vote.  He  votes  for  it.  Every  Democrat,  with 
two  exceptions,  follows.    The  next  day  they  wake  up 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  49 

and  say,  "What  have  we  done?"  Is  it  anything  more 
than  a  demonstration  of  the  power  of  political  parties 
and  their  control  of  the  action  of  the  representatives  on 
the  floor  of  this  Assembly?  We  don't  say  that  by  way 
of  indictment  or  charge,  but  we  say  that  to  remind  you 
gentlemen  that  the  political  control  by  a  party  of  its 
elected  officials,  is  not  a  peculiar  institution  of  the 
Socialist  Party. 

And  now,  since  we  are  all  politicians,  I  will  say  a 
few  words  to  ease  our  conscience.  I  will  say  this: 
The  objection  to  political  parties  interfering  with 
the  conduct  of  their  elected  officials  is  not  one  based  on 
law  or  morals,  but  on  old,  outworn  prejudices.  There 
was  a  time  when  political  parties  were  anathema  in  this 
country,  and  in  every  other  country.  You  will  all  re- 
member Washington's  Farewell  Address,  and  his  warn- 
ing against  political  cliques  and  political  parties. 

At  a  time  when  the  country  consisted  of  a  few  million 
inhabitants,  when  the  general  social  conditions  were 
largely  equal,  there  was  no  occasion,  no  need  for  polit- 
ical parties. 

The  constitution  does  not  provide  for  and  does  not 
recognize,  the  existence  of  political  parties.  But  as  times 
went  on,  as  the  population  grew,  as  class  distinctions 
sprang  up,  as  economic  interests  were  diversified  and  all 
other  interests  likewise,  political  parties  became  an  abso- 
lute necessity,  a  supplement  to  our  constitutional  struc- 
ture without  which  the  Republic  could  not  survive.  And 
it  was  only  within  the  last  forty  years,  or  thereabouts, 
that  the  law  began  to  recognize  and  to  legalize  existing 
political  parties,  to  accord  them  certain  rights,  and  to 
subject  them  to  general  supervision.  Political  parties 
to-day  are  the  bulwark  of  democracy  and  the  control  by 
political  parties  of  their  elected  officials  is  the  most 
democratic,  the  most  honest  feature  in  our  political  life. 

Why?  Because  the  voter  today  cannot  rely  upon  the 
individual  merits  of  any  candidate.  You  take  a  city  like 
New  York  where  a  million  and  a  half  voters  choose  the 
mayor.  How  many  men  know  him  personally?  Citi- 
zens are  called  upon  in  every  national  election  to  vote 


50  SOCIALISM    ON    TRIAL 

for  twenty  or  thirty  different  candidates.  How  many 
know  any  of  them?  How  many  of  the  ordinary  folks 
know  even  to-day  their  representatives  in  the  State 
Senate,  in  Congress,  and  so  on?  Very,  very  few,  it  has 
been  found  on  a  number  of  occasions.  The  individual 
candidate  is  unreliable.  He  may  change  his  views,  his 
policies;  he  may  be  influenced  in  some  obnoxious  direc- 
tion; he  may  fall  sick;  he  may  be  affected  mentally,  but 
the  party  is  a  permanent  factor  appearing  before  the 
electorate  year  after  year.  Like  a  corporation,  it  has 
perpetual  existence.  The  party  as  such  by  adopting  a 
platform  expresses  the  views  of  a  certain  group  of  the 
electorate.  The  party  not  only  expresses  its  views  by 
adopting  its  platform  but  makes  definite  pledges,  definite 
promises  to  the  electorate.  The  voter  knows,  or  ought  to 
know,  that  the  Republican  party  stands  for  this  policy; 
the  Democratic  party  for  that;  the  Socialist  for  the 
other.  The  voters  say  in  effect:  "We  will  vote  in  office 
the  party  that  represents  our  views  and  interests,  and 
we  charge  the  party  with  responsibility  to  make  good  its 
election  pledges  and  promises  as  expressed  in  their  plat- 
form, and  if  it  does  not  it  will  have  to  meet  us  next  time, 
and  we  will  get  square  on  it,  and  if  one  of  its  representa- 
tives does  not,  and  the  party  does  not  discipline  him 
but  tolerates  him,  we  will  know  how  to  deal  with  the 
party  next  time. 

The  party  is  the  political  framework  of  our  modern 
institutions.  The  elected  representatives  are  nothing 
but  agents  of  these  parties,  spokesmen  for  them.  Who 
cares  whether  Mr.  So  and  So,  or  Mr.  So  and  So  sits  in  a 
seat  in  this  Assembly?  How  many  of  you  Assemblymen 
or  members  of  any  other  legislative  body  are  known  to 
have  been  chosen  for  their  personal  political  merits? 
Very,  very  few. 

And  we  say  we  recognize  the  fact  fully  and  frankly, 
and  we  recognize  it  as  a  proper  fact.  The  Socialist  party 
above  all  other  parties  insists  upon  the  right  and  the 
duty  of  the  party  as  such,  the  party  as  a  party,  to  see  to 
it  that  its  representativs  live  up  to  the  pledges,  to  the 
promises,  to  the  representations  which  we  make  in 
elections. 


SOCIALISM    ON    TRIAL  51 

And  if  any  one  of  our  representatives,  chosen  on  our 
platform,  receiving  the  votes  of  the  electorate,  on  the 
faith  of  that  platform  should  turn  untrue  to  these  pledges 
and  promises  because,  forsooth,  he  has  changed  his 
mind,  or  his  individual  conscience  docs  not  agree  with 
the  party  position,  we  tell  to  him  to  get  out  of  the  Social- 
ist party,  and  to  go  where  his  position  places  him.  The 
Socialist  party,  as  such,  stands  for  definite  principles. 
The  Socialist  party  appeals  to  the  electorate  on  a  defi- 
nite platform.  The  Socialist  party  guarantees,  by  impli- 
cation, the  performance,  the  honest  performance,  of  its 
platform  promises. 

We  shall  see  to  it  that  our  representatives  live  up  to 
the  principles  of  political  honesty,  or  if  they  do  not, 
they  are  to  be  separated  from  our  party  as  quickly  as 
possible. 

War 

I  think  the  most  telling  point,  at  any  rate  the  one  that 
was  emphasized  more  than  any  other,  is  the  charge  that 
the  Socialist  party  is  unpatriotic  and  disloyal.  This 
charge  is  based  upon  various  utterances  contained  in  the 
St.  Louis  resolution  which,  I  have  no  doubt,  my  friends 
on  the  other  side  will  read  and  read  to  you  again  in 
their  summing  up.  It  is  also  charged  that  "the  Socialist 
party  urged  its  members  to  refrain  from  taking  part  in 
the  war  and  that  it  affirmatively  urged  them  to  refuse 
to  engage  even  in  the  production  of  munitions  of  war  and 
other  necessaries  used  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war." 
And  then  there  are  our  expressions  "the  snare  and  de- 
lusion of  so-called  defensive  warfare,"  and  the  "false 
doctrine  of  national  patriotism."  The  one  serious 
charge  in  it  —  the  charge  that  we  urged  party 
members  to  refuse  to  engage  in  the  production  of  muni- 
tions of  war  and  other  necessaries  used  in  the 
prosecution  of  war  has  never  been  sustained  by  any 
testimony.  It  was  challenged  by  Mr.  Stedman  in  his 
opening.  He  said  if  it  can  be  proved  we  will  admit  that 
a  serious  charge  has  been  established  against  us.     We 


52  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

maintain  that  there  has  been  no  proof  of  any  kind  on 
that  point.  What  has  been  proved,  gentlemen,  and 
what  undoubtedly  has  been  the  fact,  is  this:  That  the 
Socialist  Party  has  consistently,  emphatically  and  at 
all  times  opposed  the  war;  that  it  has  been  opposed  to 
the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  war,  and  that 
when  the  United  States  entered  the  war  it  has  been  in 
favor  of  a  speedy  cessation  of  hostilities.  It  remained 
opposed  to  the  war  as  such. 

We  claim,  I  think  we  proved,  that  with  all  that,  we  at 
all  times  recognized  that  the  war  was  on;  that  war  had 
been  declared ;  that  it  had  been  legally  declared,  and  that 
we  complied  with  all  the  concrete  enactments  of  war  legis- 
lation in  every  respect.  We  did  not  surrender  our  opinion 
—  our  sincere  belief  that  the  war  was  wrong,  monstrously 
wrong,  and  that  every  day  of  its  continuance  entailed 
unnecessary  misery  and  privations  upon  our  people.  We 
voiced  those  sentiments.  We  voiced  them  because  we 
maintained,  and  maintain,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there 
isn't  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  that  there  isn't  an  act  of 
the  highest  type  of  legislative  measures,  such  even  as  a 
constitutional  enactment  or  amendment,  which  intends 
to  silence  the  tongues  and  stifle  the  thought  of  the  people, 
to  which  the  people  must  bow,  not  merely  in  the  sense 
of  practical  submission,  but  in  the  sense  of  intellectual 
and  moral  submission  against  their  honest  convictions. 
We  say  that  it  was  never  intended  that  this  doctrine 
should  ever  be  tolerated  in  this  country.  It  was  never 
intended  that  upon  the  declaration  of  war  or  the  happen- 
ing of  any  other  great  national  emergency,  that  all 
thoughts  of  the  people  in  this  great  Republic  should  cease, 
all  democratic  institutions  should  come  to  an  end,  and 
the  destiny  of  more  than  110,000,000  persons  should  be 
placed  in  the  hands  of  one  individual,  no  matter  how 
exalted.  This  is  not  democracy.  It  is  the  worst  form  of 
autocracy. 

We  proceeded  upon  the  assumption  that  it  is  not  only 
the  right,  but  the  duty  of  every  citizen  at  all  times,  and 
in  connection  with  all  measures,  to  use  his  best  judgment, 
and  if  he  honestly,  conscientiously  thought  that  a  meas- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  53 

ure  enacted  was  against  the  interest  of  his  country,  of 
his  fellowmen,  that  it  was  his  right  and  his  duty  to  do 
all  in  his  power  to  have  it  righted,  to  have  it  repealed,  to 
have  it  undone.  We  had  ample  authority  in  the  prec- 
edents of  this  country  for  the  theory,  that  the  greater 
the  crisis  the  greater  the  duty  to  speak,  the  greater  the 
danger  of  expressing  opposition,  the  higher  the  call  of 
duty  to  brave  that  danger.  It  is  only  the  arrant  political 
coward  who  supinely  submits  to  what  he  in  good 
faith  considers  a  crime.  I  again  want  to  make  it  per- 
fectly clear  that  this  does  not  conflict  at  all  with  the 
other  as  well  established  proposition  that  in  a  land  of 
laws,  the  minority  must  always  submit  to  the  concrete 
enactment  of  the  majority  without  necessarily  approving 
of  it;  without  ceasing  to  advocate  its  repeal. 

Now,  I  say  we  had  abundant  authority  in  this  country 
to  hold  this  position.  In  fact,  this  was  the  American 
position.  The  proposition  advanced  against  us  now  is 
a  novel,  un-American  proposition.  And,  to  support  this 
I  shall  read  a  few  quotations  from  what  my  friend, 
Mr.  Roe,  has  submitted  here  in  support  of  this  contention. 
In  connection  with  the  War  of  1812,  Mr.  Daniel  Patten, 
representative  of  Virginia,  said  in  1813:  "It  is  said  that 
war  haAdng  been  declared,  all  considerations  as  to  its 
policy  or  justice  are  out  of  the  question,  and  it  is  re- 
quired of  us  as  an  imperious  duty,  to  unite  on  the  meas- 
ures which  may  be  proposed  by  them  (that  is,  the 
Government),  for  its  prosecution,  and  we  are  promised 
a  speedy,  honorable  and  successful  issue.  Do  gentlemen 
require  of  us  to  act  against  our  convictions?  Do  they 
ask  that  we  should  follow  with  reluctant  step  in  the 
career  which  we  believe  will  end  in  ruin?  Or  do  they 
suppose  that  while  on  the  simplest  subject  an  honest 
diversity  of  sentiment  exists,  in  these  complicated  and 
all-important  ones,  our  minds  are  cast  in  the  same  mold? 
Uniformity  of  action  is  only  desirable  when  there  is 
uniformity  of  sentiment,  and  that  we  must  suppose  will 
only  exist  where  the  mind  is  enchained  by  the  fear  which 
despotic  power  inspires.  But  it  has  been  said  that  obe- 
dience to  the  will  of  the  majority  is  the  first  principle  of 


54  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

representative  government,  and  enjoins  wliat  gentlemen 
require.  Obedience  to  all  constitutional  acts  is  a  high 
and  commanding  duty  on  the  part  of  the  minority  of  the 
people,  and  all  factious  opposition  is  highly  criminal;  but 
this  does  not  prevent  any  one  in  this  house,  or  in  the 
nation  to  use  every  effort  to  arrest  the  progress  of  evil, 
or  to  effect  a  bill  or  measures  in  relation  to  the  public 
interests.  And  how  can  this  be  done,  unless  there  is  a 
full  liberty  to  think  and  to  speak  and  to  act  as  our  con- 
victions shall  dictate?  If  this  be  denied  then  there  is 
an  end  to  free  government.  A  majority  can  never  be 
corrected.  They  are  irresponsible  and  despotic.  They 
may  prepare  the  yoke  when  they  please  and  we  must  sub- 
mit in  silence." 

And  with  reference  to  the  Mexican  w^ar  let  me  just 
read  a  quotation  from  Sumner,  While  the  war  was 
in  progress  he  said:  "The  Mexican  war  is  an  enormity 
born  of  slavery,  base  in  object,  atrocious  in  beginning, 
immoral  in  all  its  influences,  vainly  prodigal  of  treasure 
and  life.  It  is  a  war  of  infamy  w4iich  must  blot  the 
pages  of  our  history."  That  was  said  during  the  exist- 
ence and  continuation  of  the  war,  and  how  does  that 
compare  with  our  mild  statement  that  this  was  a  capi- 
talist war,  having  its  origin  in  commercial  rivalry  and 
leading  only  to  the  gain  of  profiteers? 

The  proposition  was  stated  still  more  clearly  by  Mr. 
Charles  H.  Hudson,  of  Massachusetts,  who  said:  "Has 
it  come  to  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  a  President  can 
arrogate  to  himself  the  warmaking  power,  can  trample 
the  Constitution  under  foot,  and  wantonly  involve  the 
nation  in  war,  and  the  people  must  submit  to  this 
atrocity  and  justify  him  in  his  course  or  be  branded  as 
traitors  to  their  country?  Why,  sir,  if  this  doctrine  pre- 
vails, the  more  corrupt  the  administration  is,  if  it  has 
the  power  or  the  daring  to  involve  this  nation  in  a 
war  without  cause,  the  greater  is  its  impunity,  for  the 
moment  it  has  succeeded  in  committing  that  outrage 
every  mouth  must  be  closed  and  everyone  must  bow 
in  submission.  A  doctrine  more  corrupt  was  never 
advanced:  a  sentiment  more  dastardly  was  never  advo- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TillAL  55 

cated  in  a  deliberative  assembly.  Gentlemen  who  pro- 
fess to  be  peculiar  friends  of  popular  rights  may  advance 
doctrines  of  this  character  and  they  may  be  in  perfect 
accordance  with  their  views  and  feelings  and  in  conform- 
ity with  their  democracy;  but  I  have  too  much  of  the 
spirit  which  characterized  our  fathers  to  submit  to  dic- 
tation from  any  source  whatsoever,  whether  it  be  for- 
eign monarch  or  an  American  President, 

"I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  first  principal 
declaration  in  the  message  of  the  President — that  the 
war  exists  by  the  act  of  Mexico  and  that  we  have  taken 
all  honorable  means  to  prevent  it  —  to  be  an  untruth." 

I  could  read  any  number  of  similar  statements.  I  shall 
refrain.  I  call  attention  to  only  one  thing,  and  that  is 
that  the  accepted  American  policy  up  to  this  war  was  as 
stated,  namely,  the  right  to  criticise  the  war,  to  oppose 
the  war,  exists  after  the  declaration  of  war ;  if  it  did  not 
exist,  this  nation  could  be  turned  into  an  autocracy 
by  means  of  declaring  war;  if  it  did  not  exist, 
there  would  be  no  way  of  bringing  a  war  to  an  end  by 
popular  will.  It  was  only  when  this  war  came  upon  us 
that  the  doctrine  changed,  and  I  will  tell  you  why:  you 
see,  as  was  the  case  in  all  previous  wars,  we  had  orig- 
inally two  parties  on  the  subject,  an  anti-war  party  and 
a  pro- war.  party.  The  Democratic  party  was  the  peace 
party;  the  Republican  party  was  generally  considered 
the  war  party.  You  remember,  I  suppose,  that  our 
President  was  re-elected  on  the  slogan  "He  has  Kept  us 
Out  of  War."  You  remember  the  speech  of  Honorable 
Martin  Glynn  at  the  Democratic  National  Convention 
on  the  subject.  Now,  imagine  for  a  moment  that  Mr. 
Wilson  had  not  been  re-elected  and  Mr.  Hughes  was 
elected.  What  would  have  been  the  logical  develop- 
ments? Just  this:  That  the  Republican  party  would 
have  drawn  us  into  the  war,  as  they  proclaimed  their 
intention  very  definitely;  and  the  Democratic  party 
would  have  remained  an  opposition  party,  a  peace  party. 
The  Democratic  party  then,  as  a  matter  of  policy  and 
consistency,  would  have  taken  the  position  taken  by  these 
earlier  American  opponents  of  war  when  war  was  on. 


56  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

But  it  so  happened  that  it  was  the  Democratic  adminis- 
tration that  had  gone  into  the  war  and  it  became  a  war 
party  from  a  peace  party.  What  could  the  Republican 
party  do  except  to  go  it  one  better  and  to  become  an 
ultra  war  party;  and  so  instead  of  having  a  contest 
between  peace  and  war,  we  had  a  contest  between  war 
and  more  war,  and  this  entirely  abnormal  un-American 
psychology  of  war  terror  and  war  hysteria  took  posses- 
sion of  us. 

Now,  then,  the  only  party  that  still  remained  a  peace 
party  in  American  politics,  was  the  Socialist  party. 

Knowing  these  precedents,  construing  the  general  spirit 
of  American  public  rights,  as  we  have  stated  them,  we 
viewed  our  entry  into  the  war  unhampered  by  the  fear  of 
manufactured  public  sentiment.  We  thought  it  a  great 
calamity.  We  knew  that  at  the  time  we  were  about  to 
enter  the  war,  about  six  million  human  beings  had  been 
slaughtered  on  the  battlefields,  a  greater  number  than 
had  ever  been  killed  in  any  war  or  the  wars  of  any 
century,  I  believe,  in  the  past.  We  knew  that  all  Europe 
was  in  chaos,  going  to  ruin  and  destruction,  and  we 
argued:  "What  will  the  entry  of  the  United  States  in 
this  war  mean?  It  will  add  to  the  conflagration;  it  will 
subject  thousands,  hundreds  of  thousands,  and  if  it  con- 
tinues long  enough,  millions  of  our  boys  to  slaughter; 
make  millions  of  American  widows  and  orphans ;  destroy 
this  nation  industrially ;  destroy  it  morally ;  breed  hatred 
in  our  ranks  as  it  has  bred  hatred  in  Europe,  and  not 
accomplish  anything  good,  nothing  certainly  commensu- 
rate with  the  sacrifice  required.  We  did  not  believe  that 
democracy  would  be  assured  as  the  result  of  this  war." 

We  thought  on  the  contrary  that  as  a  result  of  this  war, 
certain  classes  of  war  lords,  profiteers  and  reactionaries 
would  set  up  a  reign  of  terror  in  almost  every  country. 
We  did  not  believe  that  human  civilization  would  be  ad- 
vanced by  this  war.  We  could  see  nothing  in  it  but  a 
colossal  carnage  brought  on  by  the  conmiercial  rivalries 
of  the  capitalists  of  Europe.  We  could  see  in  it  nothing 
but  a  cataclysm  of  human  civilization.  We  could  see 
in  it  nothing  but  the  greatest  blot  upon  human  intelli- 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  57 

gence  and  we  said,  "Here  are  wc,  tiie  United  States,  about 
four  thousand  miles  away  from  the  seat  of  this  insane 
carnage,  a  powerful  people,  powerful  in  wealth,  power- 
ful in  influence,  a  people  that  has  set  out  to  create  a  new 
civilization  on  this  hemisphere,  a  people  that  has  turned 
away  from  the  intrigue,  from  the  machinations  of  the 
old  w^orld.  Here  is  our  opportunity;  let's  stay  out  of 
this  insane  carnage.  Let  us  preserve  all  our  resources, 
all  our  strength,  in  order  to  render  it  plentifully  to  the 
distracted  nations  of  Europe  w'hen  the  carnage  is  over 
and  the  process  of  reconstruction  and  reconciliation  and 
rebuilding  sets  in," 

And  when  we  heard  what  we  considered  this  insane, 
stimulated  cry  for  participation  in  this  slaughter,  we 
said,  the  men  who  do  that,  the  men  who  are  pushing  this 
Republic  into  this  European  carnage,  with  which  it  has 
no  direct  vital  concern,  may  mean  well,  may  be  per- 
sonally honest,  but  they  are  committing  or  are  about  to 
commit,  the  gravest  crime  every  committed  in  the  annals 
of  history  against  this  nation  and  also  against  the  world. 

And  we  said  "holding  these  views  as  we  do,  it  is  our 
sacred  duty  as  citizens  of  this  country,  our  sacred  duty 
to  our  fellowmen,  to  protest  against  the  war,  to  oppose 
it  with  every  fibre  of  our  existence,  come  what  may, 
in  the  shape  of  opposition,  persecution  or  suffering,"  and 
we  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  if  any  of  you  had  held  those 
convictions,  and  if  you  were  true  to  yourselves,  true  to 
your  country,  you  couldn't  have  acted  otherwise.  We 
did  not.  And  now  that  the  war  is  over  and  the  entire 
world  is  quivering  under  the  tortures  inflicted  upon  it, 
now  that  the  war  is  over  and  ten  millions  or  more  human 
beings  have  been  directly  slaughtered  and  many  more 
millions  killed  by  the  ravages  of  epidemics,  now  that  all 
Europe  is  in  mourning,  now  that  the  greater  part  of  Eu- 
rope is  starving,  succumbing,  bringing  up  a  new  genera- 
tion of  anaemic,  under-nourished  weaklings,  now  that  we 
helplessly  behold  the  ruins  of  our  civilization  and  are  un- 
able to  rebuild  the  world ;  now,  we  Socialists  say  we  have 
absolutely  no  reason  to  repent  our  stand.  If  we  had, 
we  would  be  men  enough  to  say  so.  but  in  view  of  what 


58  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

has  happened,  we  say,  on  the  contrary,  if  ever  there  was 
anything  about  which  we  feel  we  were  right,  in  which  we 
feel  we  performed  a  great  imperative  moral  duty,  it  was 
this  opposition  to  the  hideous,  inhuman  slaughter  called 
war,  and  if  occasion  should  present  itself  again,  under 
similar  circumstances,  we  will  take  exactly  the  same 
position. 

It  was,  gentlemen,  with  this  attitude  in  mind 
that  we  formulated  our  proclamations;  formulated  our 
programs.  We  have  been  asked  on  this  stand  by  elo- 
quent counsel  on  the  other  side,  time  and  time  again, 
"You  say  you  submitted  to  the  law?"  "Yes,  yes, 
we  do."  "Did  you  do  anything  more  than  the  law 
compelled  you  to  do?"  No,  we  did  not.  How  could 
we?  We  regarded  the  war  as  an  inhuman  institu- 
tion. We  submitted  to  the  concrete  will  of  the 
majority  as  good  citizens  of  a  democratic  republic, 
but  to  go  out  in  any  way  of  our  own  free  will  to 
contribute  to  what  we  consider  nothing  but  a  senseless 
insane  slaughter  of  our  fellow  men,  how  could  we  con- 
sistently do  it?  How  would  you,  or  you,  or  any  of  you 
act  in  the  face  of  a  law  which  you  would  consider  abso- 
lutely obnoxious.  You  would  comply  with  it.  You 
wouldn't  do  more  than  that.  You  couldn't  if  you  re- 
mained true  to  yourselves. 

Then  a  peculiar  construction  has  been  placed  upon 
our  platform,  principally  the  statement  of  our  opposition 
to  war  at  all  times.  "Unalterable  opposition  to  the  war, 
just  declared,"  it  was.  We  said  to  you,  gentlemen,  "that 
doesn't  mean  that  we  will  break  the  law.  No.  We  com- 
ply with  it.  We  are  drafted.  We  go.  We  are  taxed. 
We  pay.  But  we  do  not  and  we  cannot  approve  of  this 
war  in  our  frame  of  mind."  It  seemed  to  be  impossible 
for  the  gentlemen  to  understand  this  position. 

Now,  let  me  read  to  you  something  from  very  recent 
history,  oh,  in  fact,  about  a  week  old.  A  certain  political 
party  adopted  this  statement  or  proclamation: 

"We  are  unalterably  opposed  to  prohibition  by  Federal 
amendment.  We  believe  it  to  be  an  unreasonable  inter- 
ference with  the  rights  of  the  States  as  guaranteed  by 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  59 

the  Constitution.  We  feel  that  the  recent  enactment  was 
the  imposition  of  the  ideas  of  an  active  minority  against 
the  wishes  of  the  great  majority  of  the  American  people. 
We  therefore  declare  for  its  speedy  repeal  and  to  the 
end  that  the  personal  liberty  of  the  people  of  our  State 
may  be  thoroughly  safeguarded,  until  such  time  as  this 
repeal  may  be  brought  about,  we  declare  the  right  of  our 
State  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  power  to  so  construe 
the  concurrent  clause  of  the  18th  Amendment  as  to  be 
in  accord  with  the  liberal  and  reasonable  view  of  our 
people." 

Now,  there  was  a  constitutional  enactment,  a  con- 
stitutional amendment,  a  higher  type  of  law,  than  a  mere 
act  of  Congress.  The  declaration  of  war  was  an  act  of 
Congress.  The  18th  amendment  was  an  act  of  the  sov- 
ereign people. 

What  did  the  Democratic  Party  say?  ''We  are  un- 
alterably opposed  to  prohibition  by  Federal  amend- 
ment." We  said,  "We  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the 
war  just  declared."  Did  we  say  anything  different 
except  that  the  Democratic  Party  felt  more  strongly  on 
drink,  and  we  felt  more  strongly  on  war?  Otherwise,  is 
it  not  the  same  philosophy?  "We  believe  it  to  be  an  un- 
reasonable interference  with  the  rights  of  the  states  as 
guaranteed  by  the  constitution.  We  feel  it  was  the  im- 
position of  the  ideas  of  an  active  minority  against  the 
wishes  of  the  great  majority  of  the  American  people." 
That  is  just  what  we  said.  We  said  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  had  been  stampeded  into  the  war  by 
the  active  minority  of  war  agitators,  and  we  are  haled 
before  your  Bar  to  answer  for  it.  You  declared  for  a 
speedy  repeal,  we  declared  for  a  speedy  peace,  but  we 
never  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  while  the  law  remains 
law,  we  here  will  make  our  own  law  in  defiance  of  the 
United  States  Constitution,  and  have  our  drink  anyhow. 

Now,  then,  I  ask  you  if  it  was  perfectly  legal  and 
proper  for  the  Democratic  Party  to  oppose  the  supreme 
law  after  its  enactment,  why  not  for  the  Socialist 
Party?  We  will  assume  the  Democratic  Party  was  per- 
fectly honest  about  this  resolution,  we  ask  you  to  assume 


60  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

the  same  about  us,  all  the  more,  that  not  a  charge  has 
been  made  that  any  Socialist,  the  Party  as  such,  or  its 
members,  have  been  improperly  influenced  in  any  way 
towards  the  position  which  they  took.  There  is  not  a 
semblance  or  suspicion  of  a  charge  that  our  resolutions, 
proclamations  and  stand  are  anything  but  the  pure, 
honest  expression  of  our  conscience.  Bear  that  in  mind 
when  you  come  to  pass  upon  that  point. 

In  this  connection  also,  we  are  charged  with  having 
adopted  a  resolution  for  the  repudiation  of  war  debts. 
You  remember  the  history  of  it.  It  was  adopted  in 
the  platform  before  any  Liberty  Bonds  were  in  existence. 
It  was  suppressed  by  the  National  Executive  Committee 
because  Liberty  Bonds  had  been  issued  at  the  time  of 
its  ratification  by  the  party  members.  I  will  merely 
say  this,  gentlemen:  The  Socialist  party,  even  in  Russia, 
in  nationalizing  private  property,  has  taken  care  to  com- 
pensate the  small  investors.  I  think  the  small  people,  the 
employees  who  bought  with  their  savings,  a  fifty  dollar 
bond,  a  hundred  dollar  bond  or  two  hundred  dollars' 
worth  of  bonds,  should  be  safeguarded.  So  that  we  shall 
not  be  misunderstood,  I  shall  say  that  if  there  is  no  law 
to  the  contrary,  the  best,  the  sanest  thing  that  the  world 
can  do  to-day  is  to  repudiate  all  war  debts,  and  to  begin 
life  anew  with  a  clean  slate.  These  war  debts  today 
mount  into  staggering  figures,  requiring  annual  interest 
of  many  billions.  The  "small  employees"  hold  a  very 
small  part  of  it.  The  vast  bulk  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
very  rich.  Now,  what  does  that  mean,  gentlemen?  For- 
get the  terms,  "bonds,"  "interest"  and  all  other  legal 
terms.  Take  the  whole  institution  into  consideration  and 
it  means  this:  that  we  have,  on  account  of  the  war, 
created  a  certain  class  or  certain  classes  all  over  the 
world  which  hold  a  mortgage  upon  their  fellow  men ;  that 
every  year  the  workers  and  the  people  of  every  country 
must  produce  billions  to  pay  interest  on  these  bonds ;  that 
when  we  are  gone,  when  our  children  are  born  and  grown 
up,  they  will  have  to  work  in  order  to  pay  the  interest  on 
those  bonds  to  the  children  of  those  who  now  hold  them. 
We  have  created  a  new  class.    We  have  created  a  new 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  61 

form  of  bondage  by  these  tremendous  unprecedented 
loans,  and  as  a  measure  of  self -protection,  I  say  mankind 
represented  by  all  nations  involved  in  this  war  would, 
in  my  opinion,  and  I  believe  in  the  opinion  of  a  great 
many  non-Socialists,  do  well  to  repudiate  them  all, 
except  small  holdings,  and  start  out  afresh. 

It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Socialist  party's  posi- 
tion, which,  for  reasons  of  the  time,  had  suppressed  and 
did  not  circulate  this  particular  plank;  but  I  do  not 
want  it  to  be  understood  that  at  any  time  we  wished 
to  renounce  the  position  taken  by  us.  The  position  taken 
by  us  in  the  convention,  on  the  repudiation  of  war  debts 
was  a  proper  and  sound  one.  It  would  have  saved  our 
generation  and  the  generations  to  come  and  it  would  have 
discouraged  war  profiteers  and  munition  manufacturers 
from  urging  wars  ever  hereafter.  But  it  is  not  there. 
It  is  not  in  our  platform. 

I  have  two  short  points,  Mr.  Chairman, — 

The  Chairman.  —  Well,  you  can  use  your  judgment. 

Mr.  Hillquit.  —  Then  let  us  recess  for  five  or  ten 
minutes. 

The  Chairman.  —  We  will  take  a  recess  for  15  minutes 
Mr.  Hillquit. 

(Whereupon,  at  5:20  p.m.,  a  recess  was  taken  for  15 
minutes.) 


AFTER   RECESS,   5:35   p.m. 
Internationalism 

The  Chairman.  —  Proceed. 

Mr.  Hillquit.  —  I  have  two  more  points,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  then  I  shall  conclude. 

One  of  them  is  the  charge  that  the  Socialist  party  owes 
allegiance  to  a  foreign  power  known  as  the  Internationale. 


62  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

That  has  been  embellished  and  decorated  somewhat  by 
my  eloquent  friend,  Mr.  Littleton,  who,  among  other 
things,  charged  that  they  (the  Assemblymen)  "gave  their 
allegiance  wholly  and  solely  to  an  alien,  invisible  em- 
pire, known  as  the  Internationale,"  and  also  that  it  is 
that  alien  state  to  which,  before  the  five  members  had 
entered  into  this  Chamber,  they  had  pledged  their  sup- 
port, honor  and  allegiance,"  going  even  so  far  as  to  say 
that  it  was  through  the  instrumentality  of  this  Inter- 
nationale that  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States 
received  orders  from  Lenine  and  Trotzky  and  carried 
them  out  in  this  country.  This  was  somewhat  supple- 
mented by  counsel's  brief,  which  charged  the  Socialist 
party  with  being  an  anti-national  party. 

In  the  progress  of  the  evidence  the  invisible  empire  — 
that  mysterious  body  to  which  the  Socialists  owed  alle- 
giance—  has  become  more  and  more  invisible  until  at 
this  time,  looking  through  the  evidence,  you  cannot  see  it 
with  a  magnifyiug-glass. 

The  position  of  the  Socialist  party  on  the  subject  is 
very  simple:  the  Socialist  party  is  not  an  anti-national 
party.  Socialists  recognize  the  existence  of  nations  and 
their  right  to  exist  as  nations,  and  also  the  great  cul- 
tural contributions  of  nations  as  nations  to  the  civiliza- 
tion of  the  world ;  in  fact,  the  Socialist  party,  more  than 
any  other  party,  has  always  stood  for  the  right  of  nations 
to  maintain  their  independence.  I  think  there  is  not 
a  movement  in  the  world  today  which  is  as  warm  and 
consistent  a  friend  of  the  Irish  movement  for  national 
independence  as  ours.  It  has  been  for  Polish  indepen- 
dence before  the  statesmen  of  Europe  and  America  ever 
were  made  aware  of  the  existence  of  such  a  problem ;  and 
the  same  thing  applies  to  the  aspirations  of  all  nations 
to  independent  national  existence,  such  as  Egypt,  or 
India  and  other  countries  similarly  situated.  But 
the  fact  that  we  recognize  the  national  existence  and 
national  rights  docs  not  limit  our  interest  to  one  nation 
in  each  case.  We  recognize  that  today  a  nation  is  no 
longer  a  rounded-out,  separate  entity.  It  has  become, 
whether  we  are  aware  of  it  or  not,  a  member  of  the 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  63 

international  community.  Socialism  is  international,  it 
is  true.  It  is  international  in  the  sense,  first,  that  its 
platform,  its  program,  its  ideals  and  aspirations  are 
substantially  the  same  in  every  country.  It  is  inter- 
national inasmuch  as  it  cooperates  with  similar  move- 
ments in  every  other  country  in  joint  discussion  of  many 
problems,  at  congresses ;  occasionally  in  material  support 
of  the  Socialist  movement  in  a  country  that  is  engaged  in 
a  particularly  important  fight.  It  is  international, 
finally,  in  the  sense  that  we  have  a  vision  of  an  inter- 
national federation  of  free  socialist  nations,  which  even- 
tually will  come  to  exist  and  guarantee  the  well-being, 
the  national  security,  the  national  existence  and  the  peace 
of  all  nations. 

But,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  the  Social- 
ist movement.  If  Socialism  is  international,  so  is  capital- 
ism, so  is  banking,  so  is  commerce,  so  is  industry,  so  is 
science,  so  is  art,  so  is  all  modern  life. 

We  exist  to-day  as  a  part  of  the  International  Frater- 
nity of  men  everywhere,  and  even  governmental  func- 
tions are  becoming  more  and  more  internationalized. 

I  shall  not  go  into  details  at  this  time.  It  would  lead 
us  too  far  afield,  but  if  I  may  call  your  attention  to  two 
works,  which  I  would  recommend  you  to  read,  Prof. 
Sayre's  on  "Experiments  in  International  Administra- 
tion," and  "International  Government"  by  Mr.  Woolf, 
with  a  Committee  of  the  Fabian  Society  of  London. 
You  will  find,  perhaps,  somewhat  to  your  surprise, 
that  there  are  at  least  a  dozen  international  gov- 
ernmental institutions,  in  which  the  governments 
of  all  civilized  countries  participate.  There  are 
between  200  and  300  social,  political  and  educational 
movements  organized  on  an  international  basis,  meeting 
in  international  congresses  just  as  the  Socialist  party, 
discussing  their  problems,  just  in  the  same  way,  passing 
resolutions,  just  in  the  same  way. 

The  Socialist  party  is  affiliated  with  the  International, 
or  rather,  to  be  more  accurate,  was  affiliated  with  the 
Socialist  International  while  it  fully  existed.  It  has  ex- 
pressed at  this  time  its  intention  to  join  a  new  Inter- 


64  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

national  —  the  Moscow  International  —  and  the  evi- 
dence is  before  you  as  to  what  that  means.  It  means  the 
foundation  of  a  modern  international  organization  of 
Socialism,  but  with  no  greater  powers  than  the  old  Inter- 
national possessed.  The  Socialist  Party  of  the  United 
States  never  submitted  itself  in  its  practical  work  in  this 
country  to  the  dictates  of  the  International. 

If  you  want  to  have  a  clear  conception  of  what  this 
International  means  and  how  far  you  may  go  in  pre- 
scribing to  a  political  party  or  any  group  of  citizens  their 
right  to  meet  with  similar  groups  in  other  countries,  to 
deliberate  with  them  and  to  come  to  a  common  under- 
standing, there  are  but  two  instances  which  I  want  to 
mention  to  you.  One  is  the  organized  labor  movement 
in  the  United  States,  the  conservative  movement  led  by 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  Samuel  Gompers. 
It  may  not  be  known  to  you  that  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  is  affiliated  with  an  International  Labor 
Bureau,  which  is  in  every  respect  equal  to  our  Inter- 
national Congresses  in  function,  coming  together  peri- 
odically, having  an  International  Executive  Committee, 
an  International  Secretary,  International  publications, 
and  discussing  methods  of  common  concern  to  the  labor 
movement  of  the  world.  And  if  you  say  to  us  that 
because  we  meet  internationally  with  Socialists  of  other 
countries  we  may  be  made  to  follow  a  policy  in  this 
country  dictated  by  foreign  interests,  how  much  more 
directly  would  that  apply  to  the  labor  movement  which 
considers  such  points  as  hours  of  labor,  wages,  immigra- 
tion, safeguards  in  factories  and  other  concrete  proposi- 
tions? How  much  more  can  you  say  that  in  their  con- 
crete industrial  actions,  declarations  of  strikes,  industrial 
demands,  they  may  be  guided  by  competing  rival  foreign 
powers,  and  don't  forget  that  even  the  late  enemy  powers 
are  also  represented  in  that  Bureau. 

And  there  is  another  thing.  If  you  speak  of  the  dicta- 
tion of  foreign  powers  over  citizens  of  this  country,  if  you 
speak  of  internationalism  in  tones  of  reproof  and  abhor- 
rence, let  me  remind  you  that  it  is  not  only  the  industrial 
labor  movement  that  is  international,  but  also  religion 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  65 

and  also  the  church,  and  that  a  very  notable  example 
of  it  is  the  Catholic  Church,  which  is  the  one  definite 
international  organization,  actually  claiming  authority 
—  spiritual  authority,  at  any  rate  —  over  its  members  in 
all  countries  of  the  world,  and  actually  having  a  supreme 
Pontiff  to  direct  the  spiritual  policy  all  over  the  world. 
I  can  think  of  nothing  more  impressive  to  show  the 
danger  of  this  line  of  attack  than  a  little  paragraph  in 
a  letter  written  by  my  good  friend  and  sturdy  opponent, 
a  thorough  non-Socialist,  but  a  good  citizen,  the 
Reverend  John  A.  Ryan,  when  he  said: 

"Possibly  my  personal  desire  to  see  your  cause  tri- 
imiph"  —  meaning  this  cause  before  you  —  "is  not 
altogether  unselfish.  For  I  see  quite  clearly  that 
if  the  five  Socialist  representatives  are  expelled  from 
the  New  York  Assembly  on  the  ground  that  they 
belong  to  and  avow  loyalty  to  an  organization  which 
the  autocratic  majority  regards  as  inimical  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  State,  a  bigoted  majority  in  a 
state,  say,  like  Georgia,  may  use  the  action  as  a  pre- 
cedent to  keep  out  of  that  body  regularly  elected 
members  who  belong  to  the  Catholic  Church,  for 
there  have  been  majorities  in  the  Legislature  of  more 
than  one  southern  state  that  have  looked  upon  the 
Catholic  Church  exactly  as  Speaker  Sweet  looks 
upon  the  Socialist  party." 

There  are  certain  bounds;  there  are  certain  limits, 
which  even  in  the  heat  of  partisan  controversy  should 
be  respected  and  this  is  one  of  them.  Beware  of  this 
charge  of  internationalism  and  foreign  domination.  It 
may  lead  to  a  point  at  which  it  will  recoil  against  those 
who  are  making  these  charges  against  us.  Remember 
also  that  at  a  time  when  our  administration  is  straining 
every  nerve  to  bring  about  what  it  is  pleased  to  call  a 
League  of  Nations,  an  international  organization  of  which 
the  entire  country  is  to  become  part,  it  is  somewhat  too 
late  to  charge  it  up  against  us  as  a  crime  that  we  are 
international,  in  the  sense  of  recognizing  the  interna- 


66  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

tional  solidarity  of  men  alongside  of  the  existence  and 
the  rights  of  national  governments. 

Russia 

The  final  point  made  against  us  is  that  the  Socialist 
party  approves  of  the  Soviet  Government  of  Russia  and 
seeks  to  introduce  a  similar  regime  in  the  United  States. 

That  charge  contains  two  flaws.  We  do  not  "approve" 
of  the  Soviet  Government  of  Russia.  We  are  not  called 
upon  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  it.  We  do  not  seek 
to  introduce  a  Soviet  system  of  government  in  the  United 
States.  We  recognize  the  right  of  every  people  in  every 
country  to  choose  their  own  form  of  government  as  a 
moral  right.  We  recognize  besides  the  fact  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  every  country  must  correspond  to  the  eco- 
nomic, political  and  historic  conditions  of  that  particular 
country;  that  a  form  of  government  that  may  suit  one 
country  may  not  suit  the  other  country;  and  we  say, 
just  because  we  recognize  this  verity  we  hold  that  the 
Soviet  form  of  government  seems  to  be  good  for  Russia, 
and  that  the  Parliamentary  form  of  government  seems 
good  for  the  United  States. 

We  do  not  attempt  to  force  a  form  of  government 
upon  the  United  States  which  is  not  suitable  to  the 
genius  of  its  people.  We  do  not  approve  of  any  attempt 
to  force  a  form  of  government  upon  Russia,  which  is 
not  suitable  to  the  genius  of  its  people.  We  sympathize 
with  the  Russian  Communists  in  maintaining  their  Soviet 
government.  Why?  Because  it  is  a  Soviet  government? 
Oh,  no.  Because  it  is  a  government  of  their  own  choos- 
ing; because  it  is  a  government  of  the  workers  and  peas- 
ants, of  the  people.  We  do  not  believe  in  the  political 
nursery  tale  that  it  is  a  form  of  government  forced  upon 
the  people  of  Russia  by  Lenine  and  Trotzky,  or  any  other 
handful  of  ''agitators."  We  believe  it  is  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment which  has  evolved  from  conditions  in  Russia, 
and  which  the  Russian  people  have  adopted  instinctively 
and  have  adhered  to.  We  believe  that  if  in  the  many 
months  of  its  existence  no  counter-revolutionary  powers 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  67 

within,  no  military  powers  from  without,  have  been  able 
to  disrupt  it,  there  must  be  reason  for  its  existence.  AVe 
do  not  believe  for  one  moment  that  a  government 
which  is  entirely  arbitrary,  which  is  fictitious,  wh  eh 
is  forced  upon  a  people,  will  endure  under  the  condi- 
tions under  which  the  Russian  Soviet  government  has 
endured;  and  we  say,  therefore,  that  we  believe  it  is  the 
goverrmient  which  the  Russian  people  have  chosen  for 
themselves  and  under  which  they  are  likely  to  work  out 
their  eventual  salvation.  And  because  we  believe  in  it 
and  we  express  our  sympathy  with  it,  we  are  opposed 
to  any  external  attack  upon  it. 

Suppose,  however,  the  same  Russian  workers  and  peas- 
ants —  the  same  Russian  Socialists  —  had  adopted  a  dif- 
ferent form  of  government,  say  one  that  would  have 
sprung  from  the  constituent  Assembly,  we  should  not 
have  supported  it  any  the  less ;  we  should  have  supported 
it  in  exactly  the  same  measure,  for  we  support  their  gov- 
ernment not  because  we  endorse  that  particular  form; 
we  support  their  government  because  it  is  theirs  and  be- 
cause they  want  it  and  because  we  know  they  are  the 
ones,  and  the  only  ones,  to  determine  upon  the  mode  and 
form  of  government  under  which  they  choose  to  live. 

When  we  say  we  sympathize  with  the  Russian  Social- 
ists in  the  maintenance  of  their  Soviet  government,  and 
the  Soviet  government  as  a  whole,  we  do  not  lose  sight 
of  the  fact  that  much  of  what  has  been  done  by  that 
government  has  been  crude;  that  some  of  what  it  has 
done  has  probably  been  wrong.  It  would  have  been  a 
marvel;  it  would  have  been  an  impossibility  if  they 
should  not  have  blundered ;  if  they  should  not  have  done 
a  wrong  thing  occasionally  in  the  conditions  confronting 
them.  But  we  say  to  ourselves:  "Here  is  a  people 
which,  only  three  years  ago  at  the  utmost,  began  to 
emerge  from  a  chaos  created  by  mismanagement  of  gen- 
erations, of  centuries  even.  They  are  trying  to  find  their 
way  under  obstacles,  such  as  never  have  existed  in 
their  history  before  and  never  have  confronted 
any  people  in  the  past  —  the  industrial  and  economic 
breakdown     in     their     own     country,     the     political 


68  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

breakdown,  the  shakeup  of  all  the  institutions,  the 
collapse  of  the  war,  the  intervention  of  foreign 
powers,  the  blockade,  the  limited  means  of  transporta- 
tion. Now,  it  has  taken  our  revolution  a  great  many- 
years  before  the  country  has  settled  down  to  a  condition 
of  orderly  national  existence,  and  we  only  had  at  that 
time  three  or  four  million  people.  They  had  a  popula- 
tion of  160,000,000.  Let  us  give  them  some  time.  Let  us 
give  them  an  opportunity.  Let  us  give  them  a  chance 
to  arrange  their  own  affairs.  We  Socialists  believe  that 
if  the  absolutely  unwarranted  hostility  and  aggression 
from  the  outside  is  removed,  if  trade  is  restored  with 
Russia,  if  normal  communication  is  restored,  if  Russia 
is  given  a  chance  to  rebuild  its  shattered  economy,  Russia 
will  find  herself  and  may  become  one  of  the  most  ad- 
vanced and  enlightened  nations  in  the  international 
brotherhood.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  —  one  of  the 
main  reasons  —  why  we  support  Soviet  Russia;  why  we 
are  opposed  to  all  interference  with  it;  why  we  are 
opposed  to  the  blockade. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  interesting  part  about  it  is  that 
while  we  have  been  discussing  this  proposition  pro  and 
con,  the  governments  of  Europe  seem  to  have  begun  to 
see  the  thing  in  the  proper  light.  You  will  have  noticed 
that  the  entire  tone  of  the  European  governments  toward 
Russia  has  changed  within  the  last  few  weeks.  They 
begin  to  see  the  futility  of  trying  to  impose  a  regime  of 
their  own  liking  upon  a  foreign  people.  They  begin  to  see 
the  futility  of  trying  to  install  their  own  brand  of  civili- 
zation by  bayonets  among  the  Russian  people.  They  are 
making  peace  with  Russia;  they  are  establishing  rela- 
tions with  her,  and,  gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  if  you 
do  not  hurry  up  with  your  decision,  you  may  find  Soviet 
Russia  recognized  by  the  United  States  before  you  file 
your  report. 

We  have  never  disguised,  we  do  not  disguise  now,  our 
sympathy  for  Soviet  Russia.  It  is  legitimate  on  our 
part.  We  may  have  our  preference  for  any  form  of 
government  in  any  foreign  country,  or  for  any  class  of 
people  in  any  foreign  country.     We  recognize  that  in 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  69 

Russia  an  attempt  is  being  made  to  solve  a 
great  social  problem;  to  work  out  a  great  social  ex- 
periment. We  know  the  process  is  painful ;  we 
know  they  falter  and  stumble  occasionally;  they  fall 
occasionally  in  their  way,  but  we  believe  that  given 
liberty  of  motion  they  will  arrive  at  their  ideal.  We 
believe  that  when  they  do,  they  will  become  stabilized, 
more  practical  and  efficient,  and  they  will  have  a  contri- 
bution to  make  to  human  civilization  which  will  be  of 
prime  importance.  This  is  our  belief,  and  that  is  why 
we  sympathize  with  them. 

We  do  not  advocate  the  same  form  of  government  here 
for  the  reasons  we  have  stated,  but  we  hold  that  even 
if  we  had  advocated  the  Soviet  form  of  government  for 
the  United  States  by  peaceful  means,  we  would  be  fully 
within  our  rights. 

I  believe  it  was  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  who  once  re- 
marked in  the  course  of  the  argument,  that  if  the  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  the  United  States  declared  for  a 
Soviet,  you  would  have  to  live  in  it.  I  believe  you  would, 
and  I  believe,  as  law-abiding  citizens,  we  will  all  admit 
that  aside  from  the  question  of  political  consideration  or 
wisdom;  on  the  sole  test  of  legality  or  constitutionality, 
we  have  the  full  right  to  advocate  the  Soviet  form  of 
government  for  the  United  States,  even  though  we  do 
not  advocate  it. 

Democracy 

And  now  that  I  am  through  with  my  argument,  I  will 
say  in  conclusion,  that  after  all  is  said  and  all  is  done,  the 
entire  discussion  —  I  mean  my  discussion  and  probably 
the  discussions  to  follow  —  are  absolutely  immaterial  and 
irrelevant  as  bearing  upon  the  question  before  you. 

What  have  we  had  here  after  all?  A  delightful,  and 
let  us  hope  somewhat  useful,  academic  discussion  on  the 
tenets,  merits  and  demerits  of  Socialism,  That  was  all. 
We  should  have  liked  to  convert  you,  all  of  you,  if  we 
could,  but  if  we  cannot,  it  does  not  matter  for  the  pur- 
poses of  these  proceedings.    You  do  not  have  to  believe 


70  SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL 

as  we  do.  We  do  not  have  to  believe  as  you  do.  This 
is  not  a  question  as  to  whether  or  not  you  gentlemen 
approve  of  the  Socialist  philosophy  or  the  Socialist  pro- 
gram; whether  you  consider  us  wise  or  unwise,  rational 
or  irrational.  That  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is, 
if  you  do  not  consider  us  right,  or  wise,  have  you  the 
right  to  say  to  the  constituents  of  these  five  men,  that 
they  have  not  the  right  to  consider  the  Socialist  program 
right  or  wise?  See  the  peculiar  situation  into  which 
this  proceeding  has  led  us.  There  you  are,  a  lot  of 
Republicans  and  Democrats,  sitting  in  judgment  upon 
the  Socialist  platform,  the  Socialist  principles,  Socialist 
tactics.  That  is  what  it  has  amounted  to.  Go  through 
all  the  evidence.  See  all  the  examination  by  the  other 
side  of  the  details  of  our  party  philosophy.  Imagine 
for  a  moment,  gentlemen,  that  we,  the  Socialists,  would 
do  the  same.  We  would  sit  down  on  thirteen  chairs  — 
I  think  we  can  get  thirteen  members  of  the  party  some- 
where —  and  begin  to  consider  the  Democratic  party,  the 
Republican  party,  their  platform,  their  social  philoso- 
phies, their  aims,  their  principles,  their  leaders;  all  that 
every  Republican  or  every  Democrat  ever  said  or  did; 
the  manner  in  which  he  conducted  himself  in  his  family ; 
go  through  all  the  utterances  of  prominent  Republicans 
and  Democrats  in  print,  in  public  speeches,  and  so  on, 
and  then  pass  solemn  judgment  among  us.  Do  you  think 
you  would  have  much  of  a  chance?    Probably  not. 

And  if  it  were  a  question  merely  of  the  correctness  or 
incorrectness,  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  our  philosophy, 
I  should  not  expect  much  of  a  chance  from  you.  You 
gentlemen  belong  to  different  political  persuasions. 
Your  views,  your  station  in  life,  your  surroundings,  your 
education,  your  preconceptions  —  all  of  that  predisposes 
you  against  our  views  and  we  know  it.  But  we  say  that 
doesn't  matter.  What  about  it!  This  Assembly  and 
every  representative  body  in  this  country  is  instituted  for 
the  purpose  of  harboring  the  representatives  of  different 
and  conflicting  social  views,  with  the  sole  provision  that 
those  who  can  command  a  majority  for  any  measure 
rule  on  that  measure  at  that  particular  time.    If  you 


SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL  71 

take  it  upon  yourselves,  largely  or  solely  because  you 
disagree,  and  srtongly  disagree  with  the  Socialist  party, 
ils  program  and  policies,  to  bar  these  five  representatives 
of  the  party,  then  what  you  will  have  said  in  effect  is 
this:  "We  will  tolerate  none  in  this  Assembly  except 
those  whose  views  and  platforms  are  approved  by  us"  — 
in  other  words,  Republicans  and  Democrats.  And  you 
will  have  said  to  the  constituencies  of  these  five  men: 
"You  are  altogether  mistaken  in  your  choice;  you  have 
to  go  back  and  you  have  to  elect  Republicans  or  Demo- 
crats, for  otherwise  we  won't  allow  them  to  come  into 
our  Assembly." 

Now,  gentlemen,  when  I  say  that,  I  am  practically 
hearkening  back  to  my  first  argument,  and  that  is  that 
the  only  questions  before  you  are  the  constitutional 
qualifications  of  these  men  —  absolutely  nothing  else. 
This  very  proceeding  has  shown  the  danger  of  trying  to 
introduce  any  other  tests  or  qualifications.  Of  the  scores 
of  charges  against  these  men  produced  here  before  you, 
urged  against  them  by  counsel  for  the  Committee,  how 
will  you  determine  which  is  and  which  is  not  the  proper 
test  or  qualification?  If  these  numerous  charges  have 
been  introduced  against  these  five  men,  why  not  a  similar 
number  of  charges  against  any  other  man  or  representa- 
tive of  any  other  group  or  any  other  party  in  the 
Assembly  in  the  future?  Where  is  your  compass  in  this 
wild  political  navigation?  Where  is  your  stable,  definite, 
solid  test,  by  which  to  uphold  popular  representation? 
If  there  was  anything  to  illustrate  and  prove  conclusively 
and  concretely  the  danger  of  departing  from  constitu- 
tional qualifications,  the  danger  of  inscribing  into  the 
law  new  tests,  new  qualifications  based  upon  your  con- 
cepts of  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong,  it  has  been, 
I  say,  this  proceeding. 

I  expect,  of  course,  that  in  the  consideration  of  this 
case  and  in  arriving  at  your  conclusions  you  will  bear 
that  point  in  mind.  I  cannot  see  how  you  can  possibly 
refuse  to  seat  these  five  men  and  at  the  same  time  comply 
with  that  part  of  the  Constitution  which  specifically  pro- 
hibits the  imposition  of  any  tests  or  qualifications  for 


72  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

members  of  this  House  other  than  those  contained  in 
the  Constitution  and  recited  in  the  oath  of  oflBce.  In 
order  to  unseat  these  men  you  will  have  to  reverse  your- 
selves in  your  unanimous  decision  in  the  Decker  case, 
in  which  you  have  taken  that  position  very  clearly. 

And  I  will  say  to  you  in  conclusion:  "We  are  through, 
gentlemen.  Throughout  all  these  weary  days  of  testi- 
mony, we  have  been  trying  to  be  helpful  to  the  Commit- 
tee; we  have  not  withheld  anything  in  our  possession. 
We  have  freely  submitted  to  your  Committee;  we  have 
answered  all  questions;  we  have  stated  our  creed;  w^e 
have  given  you  all  facilities  to  arrive  at  a  proper  con- 
clusion. Let  me  be  frank  with  you.  If  we  had  been 
guided  only  by  motives  of  political  advantage,  we 
might  have  sabotaged  this  proceeding  a  little;  we  might 
have  goaded  you  into  a  decision  against  us,  for  from  a 
political  point  of  view  I  cannot  see  anything  that  would 
benefit  the  Socialist  Party  more  than  an  adverse  decision. 
Remember,  gentlemen,  we  are  a  rival  political  party. 
Your  political  mistakes  are  our  gains.  Your  political 
ruin  will  be  our  political  making,  and  we  cannot  con- 
ceive of  a  more  flagrant  political  mistake,  of  a  more 
crying  political  and  moral  wrong  than  the  unseating  of 
these  five  men.  But,  gentlemen,  we  also  recognize 
the  higher  and  more  important  principle  involved  in 
this  proceeding,  the  principle  greater  than  any  possible 
immediate  political  advantage. 

We  recognize  that  in  trying  this  issue  you  are  making 
political  history.  For  the  first  time  since  the  existence 
of  this  Republic,  aye,  I  will  go  a  step  farther  and  say 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  any  country  of  parlia- 
mentary government,  has  a  case  of  this  kind  come  up,  a 
case  involving  the  outlawry  of  an  entire  political  party, 
a  oase  in  which  the  majority  parties  would  take  it  upon 
themselves  to  bar  a  minority  party  because  they  disagree 
with  such  minority.  I  recognize  the  conditions  under 
which  this  case  has  sprung  up;  the  peculiar  psychology 
which  has  taken  hold  of  the  people  in  this  country, 
largely  on  account  of  the  war;  the  psychology  of  reck- 
lessness, of  partisanship,  of  hate,  of  reaction  and  per- 
secution. 


SOCIALISM   ON   TRIAL  73 

I  can  see  clearly  the  procession  of  events  which  led  up 
to  this  proceeding,  the  slight  infractions  of  law  in  the 
prosecution  of  radicals,  of  dissenters,  of  so-called  "dis- 
loyalists." First  it  was  a  question  of  straining  a  little 
deta,il  in  the  law  and  getting  a  conviction  where  a  con- 
viction could  not  be  had  under  ordinary  circumstances. 
Then  it  was  the  imposition  of  sentences  which  in  ordi- 
nary civilized  tune  would  be  considered  atrocious,  for 
purely  nominal  offenses.  Then  it  was  a  little  mob  rule, 
and  condoning  it  complacently.  Then  it  was  the  rounding 
up  of  radicals.  Then  it  was  the  deportations  of  radicals. 
Then  it  became  a  mania,  and  every  individual  in  this 
country  who  had  any  political  ambition  or  any  political 
cause  to  serve,  saw  in  this  great  movement  an  occasion 
to  get  in  and  cover  himself  with  glory,  and  one  by  one 
the  popular  heroes  of  the  type  of  Ole  Hanson,  and  others, 
arose  and  the  number  of  those  who  envied  them  their 
laurels  and  sought  to  emulate  them  was  legion. 

And  then  finally,  unexpectedly,  like  a  blow,  a  sudden, 
stunning  blow  came  this  action  of  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  in  connection  with  these  five  Socialists.  It  was 
overstepping  the  limit  somewhat.  It  has  caused  a  re- 
action, and  to  that  extent  it  has  done  good. 
But  let  me  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  it  is  absolutely  incon- 
ceivable that  in  times  of  normal,  rational  conditions,  any 
such  proceeding  would  have  been  undertaken,  and  it 
never  has  been.  Socialists  have  been  Socialists  of  the 
same  kind  as  they  are  now,  all  the  time,  many  and  many 
years.  They  have  been  elected  to  various  offices  and 
they  have  been  allowed  to  hold  office.  These  very  mem- 
bers, or  a  majority  of  them,  have  been  in  this  House, 
last  year  and  the  year  before,  after  their  attitude  on  the 
war  had  been  made  public  and  was  generally  known, 
after  these  various  manifestos  dated  from  1916  up  had 
been  adopted,  after  these  articles  written  in  1909  and 
1908,  had  been  published.  Their  seats  were  never  ques- 
tioned. Attempts  were  made  on  the  part  of  one  or 
another  individual  to  bring  about  their  unseating.  It 
was  frowned  down  and  squelched  by  the  very  same 
Speaker  of  the  House.    And  I  say  it  is  only  the  morbid 


74  SOCIALISM    ON   TRIAL 

political  psychology  which  prevailed  in  this  country  a 
short  time  ago  that  made  this  proceeding  possible. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  will  pass.  We  shall  return  to 
normal  conditions.  We  shall  return  to  a  normal  state  of 
mind.  We  shall  return  to  the  condition  of  a  democratic 
republic,  with  toleration  for  all  political  opinions,  so  long 
as  they  meet  on  the  common  ground  of  the  ballot  box 
and  constitutional  government.  And  I  say  if  in  the 
meantime  you  unseat  these  Assemblymen,  that  stain 
upon  our  democracy  will  never  be  washed  off,  never 
be  removed.  That  precedent  once  created  will  work 
towards  the  undoing  of  the  entire  constitutional,  repre- 
sentative system  so  laboriously  built  up. 

It  is  from  this  larger  point  of  view,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  effects  of  your  decision  upon  the  future 
of  the  political  institutions  in  this  country,  that  I  ask 
you  to  consider  the  evidence  before  you,  fairly,  on  its 
merits,  without  partisan  bias,  and  if  you  do  that  I  have 
no  doubt  and  no  fear  of  the  outcome  of  your  delibera- 
tions. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


THE  GREAT  STEEL  STRIKE:  and  Its  Lessons 

By  WILLIAM  Z.  FOSTER 

The  gnat  >tcel  strike  was  a  victory  in  tliat  it  proved  the  possibility  of  orRanizntion  amonc  i 
trial  wc-l-.ers.  The  story  of  the  organization  and  of  the  strii^e  is  of  the  first  importance  to 
who  anticipalc  further  restlessness  on  the  part  of  the  frustrated  workers.  The  significance  ( 
book  extends  far  beyond  the  particular  industry  of  which  it  treats.    Paper,  Si.oo;  cloth,  S1.7 


B.  W.  HUEBSCH,  Inc.,  Publisher,  New  York 


C7^  ' 


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIII 

3  1158  00218  2607 


HX   I 

86  I 
H55sc 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  MU  J^ 


\ 


AA    000  404  196    8 


w 

IS! 


Univ 

S( 

I 


